The authenticity, uncorrupted preservation, and credibility of the New Testament

Se eee Ssitietersics
St: Se

Sen Seem en pee ppaieestaititt ; siete stecatataie: a
: : ; : ee = ctiaeies ieee Seisesigiteatiesueevtssties = bisssseaesy

3

ites

Sil aan see Dae LIBRARY

OF THE

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.

AGA Malledi, ug:

Received September, 1880.
Accessions No 2277 Shelf No..

Ve

“by Ss
. “
32 7
J
=

“
‘ . -
i
a

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2007 with funding from
Microsoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/authenticityuncoOOlessrich

‘
THE
AUTHENTICITY,
UNCORRUPTED PRESERVATION,

AND
CREDIBILITY —
OF THE

NEW TESTAMENT.

”

BY

GODFREY LESS,

LATE PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF SOTTINGEN, &es

TRANSLATED FROM

LONDON >

PRINTED FOR F. C. AND J. RIVINGTON, NO. 62, 8T. PAUL'S
CHURCH-YARD; J. HATCHARD, NO. 190, PICCADILLY 5
DEIGHTON, AND NICHOLSON, CAMBRIDGE; AND COOKE,
HANWELL, AND PARKER, OXFORD

By Bye and Law, St. John’s Square, Clerkenwell.
1804.

mio 2,

Wome

se. ie fy. + era OPT “pat ¥a
Laos, hey epee pis hes BS cae,

VER GiA VONe bovine s peer ee ae.
gee: Y (es ha. ae s° itn
erie #. Pi ciik Fe a op (ee

x

b 4

THE fubject of the work now offered to the
public in an Englifh tranflation is an examina-
tion of the following queftions: Whether the
books of the New Tettament were really writ-
ten by the perfons to whom they are afcribed ;
Whether they have defcended to us perfectly
uncorrupted in all effential matters, as they
left the hands of their authors; And, laitly,
Whether they contain a narration of events
which did actually take place.

That this inquiry is of the greateft confe-
quence, and demands our moft impartial at-
tention, will bé evident from thefe confidera-
tiotis‘—That if we cannot anfwer the above
queftions in the affirmative, then is the Chrif-
tian Religion a cunningly devifed fable:—but,
oft the contrary, if in refult of the examina-
tion, it fhould be found that the New Tefta-
ment is both genuine and authentic,—then it

a2 | will

‘

. *
iV TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

will require but few arguments to fhew that
the miracles contained in it, are true, that the
writers were infpired perfons, and that our holy
faith is a revelation of the will of God. —

On this fubject the learned author of the
following work, Dr. Lefs, had himfelf enter-
tained doubts during .many years of his life:
for his own private fatisfaction he inftituted a
fevere and rigid inquiry: the refult is exhibited —
to the Public in the prefent treatife; and to
himfelf the confequence was a folid, rational,
and fatisfactory conviction. ‘The Original was
put into my hands, during my refidence in
Germany, by a perfon of diftinguifhed worth:
on perufal it appeared to me extremely well
calculated, from its concifenefs, perfpicuity,
and feverity of examination to produce the
fame effect on others, and to be of fervice to the
Chriftian caufe; as I cannot conceive it pofii-
ble for any man, who honeftly and impartially
feeks after truth, to read it with the attention
which the fubject demands, without receiving
the fame conviction which the author himfelf
obtained. —This opinion of the original work
firft led me to form the defign of tranflating
it into my native language.

;
Few

: -

SRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. y
- Few are. the writers who have exprefily
treated onthe Authenticity of the books of
the New Teftament, and fewer ftill who have
done it in a manner always fatisfactory to the
reader. Diu Pin is miferably defective: and
Jones feems to have been anxious rather to
fhew that certain writings are Apocryphal,
than to prove that the books of the New Tef-
tament are Canonical. Indeed he has paffed
over all the Epiftles and the re with-
out paying the leaft regard to them.

But fince his time Dr. Lardner has employed
immenfe labour and profound erudition on the
fame fubject: nor do I know any man to~
whom the Chriftian world has more obligations
than to the author of the Credibility of the
Gofpel-Hiftory.. He appears to have almoft
exhaufted his fubject, and to have rendered any
fubfequent undertaking of a fimilar nature per-
fectly unneceffary. Inftead of giving my own
opinion on. the difference between the prefent
treatife and the voluminous work of Lardner,
- [will lay before the reader the fentiments of
the great Michaelis and of the Rev. Herbert
Marth, one of the moft accurate Theological
fcholars that any age or country has ever pro-
duced. “ The beft treatifes” fays Michaelis

| a3 © upon’

ua TRANSLATOR'S, PREBACEe

“upon this fubject (the authenticity of the
New Teftament) are Larduer’s Credibility of
the Gofpel-Hiftory, and Lefs’s Truth of the
Chriftian Religion (the fubject of the following
fheets). The former of thefe works, which has
been cenfured for its prolixity, contains a very
large collection of teftimonies from the Fathers
and other ancient writers, and is. highly va-
lnable to thofe who would examine the whole
feries, of evidence for the authenticity of the
New Teftament. The works of Lardner have
been lefs. read, than they deferve : every: one
interefted in this inquiry fhould poffefs them,
were it only for occafional reference, and they:
are indifpenfible to a clergyman, who cannot
remain indifferent on fo, importanta fubject,
and whofe duty is not only to believe but to
convinced. The latter of thefe works is,
more agreeable to read begaufe prolixity. is.
avoided, and it is eafy to overfee the whole
chain of reafoning at a fingle view. Various,
teftimonies which Lardner had quoted, are.
omitted by. Lefs, becaufe they. were not fuf-
ficiently convincing, and, he has fupplied what
Lardner, had omitted. Every reader. will re-.
mark, in perufing this treatife, what I have.
learnt in frequent converfation with the author:

1 that

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE. Vii

that it is the refult of a confcientious, even
anxioufly confeientious inquiry, which he had
inftituted for his own private conviction.
Doubts on. which Lardner never thought, he
has felt and proved.”—Thus far Michaelis:
and his learned tranflator has borne his tef-
timony to the value of the prefent work in a
note to the paflage juft quoted: “ It would be
impoffible” fays he “ to give an abridgement
of it in thefe notes, as the author himfelf is
~ very concife: but the whole deferves to be
tranflated in a feparate work.”—To the tef-
timony of fuch authorities T will add nothing:
that which has obtamed the praife of Mi-
chaelis,*and the recommendation of Marth,
needs nio further panegyric.

I have only to fay a few words in refpect to
the tranflation—It is made from the laft edi-
tion'of the Origmal printed at Gottingen 1786,
and is always, it is hoped, faithful to the fenfe
of the author, and generally as literal as the »
peculiar idioms of the different languages will
allow. ‘The whole work of Dr. Lefs, which
is called by the general name of Gefchichte
der Religion, or Hiftory of Religion, is com-
prifed in three volumes. The firft is employed
on the hiftory of both natural and revealed Re-

a4 ligion.

vill TRANSLATOR’ PREFACE.

ligion. In the fecond the divine origin of Chrif-
tianity is proved at large. And the third is oc-
cupied with the examination and refutation of
objections to the Chriftian Religion.

As the following treatife is taken from the
body of a work of fuch magnitude, which is
only divided according to the grand divifions of’
the fubject, I conceived it neceffary to alter its
form by breaking it into the fubdivifions of
books, chapters &c.; in order that the con-
nection of one part with another might be
more readily perceived, and the whole. more
eafily comprehended. From the fame caufe L
have fometimes omitted a word, a fentence, or
even a whole paragraph, which appeared un-
neceflary in the prefent inquiry, and had an
evident reference to parts of the work uncon-
nected with the fubject of thefe fheets.

In the quotations from the Holy Scriptures,
Lefs has frequently paraphrafed the — paf-
_ fage, from a defire to convey the fenfe without
retaining the obfolete phrafeology of the au-
thorifed tranflation of his country. It was my
with to have always adhered literally to our
Englith verfion; but, as a tranflator, I have
been. obliged, in order to retain my author’s
argument, to retain the form in which it is

sons

TRANSLATORS PREFACE. is

conveyed, and have therefore been fometimes
compelled to render his paraphrafe word for
word, when I could not introduce the com-
mon verfion.
welt have ventured in one or two cafes. to
change .the examples adduced by the author
for others more familiar to an Englifh reader ;
thefe are fo unimportant that I do not think it
neceffary to indicate the particular inftances.
However unimportant in point of magni-
tude may be the prefent work, yet it contains a
large body of information. The fubject mat-
- ter, which if dilated in the modern fafhion,
would fill a folio, is here condenfed into one
fmall volume. This concifenefs, has tended
to render the ftyle of the Original extremely
inelegant ; and may perhaps have had a fimilar
effect on the Tranflation. To which muft be
added, that conceiving perfpicuity m a work of
this kind to be a paramount quality, I have
fiudied to make my book rather lucid than
elegant, and have been more anxious that the
reader fhould be convinced by the folidity of
the argument, than delighted by the —_ of
the expreffion. |
Some time fince I had formed an intention

of publifhing in the Englith lmiguais Dr. Lets’s

larger

« TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

larger work On the Truth of the Chriftian
Religion, and had made no fmall progrefs in
the tranflation: that intention I have relin-
quifhed for the prefent; whether at any future
period I may, renew the defign will depend on
caufes which are not under my direction.

|
i}
it

CONTENTS.

PART I. pat

The Authenticity of the New Teftament,
BOOK I.

Of the. internal. evidence,
CHAP. I. _ . Page
_ The neceflity of this inquiry * a L
CHAP. II.
Of the internal traces of authenticity in the New

Teftament ° - - z

BOOK I.

The external, or decifive evidence for the
authenticity of the New Teftament, viz.
the pofitive teftimonies of witnefles in
the three firft centuries.

CHAP. I,
Witneffes.in the fir century - oe
sec. 1. The origin and ftate of Chrittianity
in the firft century a » n 23
~ SECT,

CONTENTS.

sEcT. 1. The Apoftolical Fathers i.
1. Barnabas sts
z. Clement of Rome -
3. Hermas . - pe
4. Ignatius ++ 5

§- Polycarp = = -

secT, m1. 'Teftimonies from works of the firft

century, which are now loft .
Papias ow ~ *
CHAP. IL
Witneffes in the fecond century, . =... rama.
SECT. 1. State of Chriftianity in the fecond and
third centuries PUA ES we -
SECT. 11. Witneffes in the fecond century
x. Juftin Martyr -
2. Tatian “ »
3. Ireneus «>=. a

4. Athenagoras ~ =
5. Theophilus of Antioch ,
6. Clement of Alexandria

7. Tertullian e .

sgcT. ur. Evidences from works of the fecond

century, which are now loft -
Dionyfius - -
Tatian - -
Hegefippus ~ =
Melito - - :

Page

32
33
41
6z
70
78

33
$4

89

90
10K
105
103
109
117
i122
125
128

134
135
136
137
138

Community at Lyons and Vienne 140

Miltiades - -
Theophilus of Antioch = -

142
14.3:

Pantznus.

CONTENTS. \
| Page
Pantenus - - 143
Clement of Alexandria = - 145

CHAP, III.
Witnefles in the third century.

SECT. 1. Evidences of witnefles in the third

century - > - - 149
Caius Romanus _ . 150
Hippolitus Portuenfis - 250
Ammonius - - ist
Julius Africanus >) «154

Origen fe aGier bey 155

$ecT. 11. Information collected by Eufebius fram

the works of.the three firft centuries 142
CHAP. IV.
A fummary recapitulation of the evidences men-
tioned above - - SO Leg
CHAP. V.
Of the Revelation of St. John - - 136
‘SECT. 1. The contents of this book - 186
seCT. 1. The interpretation of the book of
Revelation - - - 197
SECT. It, Remarks on its contents ~ 208

SECT. 111. Of our common text of the Revelation 208

SECT. v. The Opinion of Ancient writers on this
book - - - - 210

SECT. VI, The true value and credit of the book 233

CHAP. |
5 ;

CONTENTS.

Page
| CHAP. VI. |
Conclufions drawn from the above mentioned
teftimonies - - - 235
BOOK III.”

‘The uncorrupted Preférvation of the
New Teftament.

CHAP. I.

| The books extant at prefent in the New Tefta-
ment are the fame writings which were
originally-compofed by the authors whofe

names they bear we ng - 343
This is proved
x. From their contents “ ‘- = 244

2. Becaufe an univerfal corruption of thefe writ-
ings was impoffible: nor can the leaf
veltige of fuch a corruption be found in
hiftory - - - - 246
3. From the agreement of the manufcripts. ~ 2§§
4- From the agreement of the old verfions, and
quotations found in the ecclefiaftical fa-
thers = - - - 259.

PART II.
The Credibility of the New Teftament.

BOOK I.
The authors of the New Teftament poflefs in a
very high degree all the requifite qualities
of credible evidences . - 267

SeEcT.

CONTENTS.

Sect. % ‘They-were immediate witneffes 8 269

SzctT. u, They were alfo competent witnefles. 271
SECT. II. | They were by no means credulous 273
‘Seer. tv, Neither were they Fanatics aly

SECT. Vv. They were, on the qatarys men of
integrity ~ - + ek SGD

SECT. vi. They relate events which happened in
their own times _ ~ - - 330

Szevr. vil. They appeal to notorious proofs 334

Sect. vi. They had nothing to expect but |
temporal difadvantages - -~ 33%

Secr.1x. They fuffered for the truth of their
nafration every thing, even death. And
brought many of their contemporaries to
the fure cqnyiction, of its truth “ 340

BOOK ¥f.

"The wonderfal eftablithtnent and propagation
of Chriftianity is a moft conviticing proof -
of the entire credibility of the Hiftory of
the New Feftament, and of the Religion

* which it eftablithes.

“CHAP. *I.
Defcription of the wonderful propagation of Chrif-
‘tianity - - - - 349

x. Chriftianity

CONTENTS.

x. Chriftianity fpreads itfelf almoft immediately
over the whole world - -

2. It prevailed without the affiftance of any tem-
poral power - - e

3. Through thirteen poor, inconfiderable, un-
learned, and almoft unknown men ==

‘4. Amidft the moft dangerous internal diftur-
bances and diftragtions . A a

5. Under the moft cruel external perfecutions, and
the oppofition of the whole world

6. And although exciting the repugnance of the
human heart = + e

: y CHAP. i, J
That the old world was intolerant + | we)

Sect, 1. Of the Egyptians, Grecians, and
Romans = - ws -

Sect. 1. The Do&rine of Chriftianity on this

fubjeé& - - = -
CHAP. III,

Parallel between the Propagation of Chriftianity,

and of the Religion of Mahomet = .
A fummary recapitulation, and conclufion of the
Credibility of the New Teftament -

Page

349
35%.
33°
353 |

354

359:

377

393

I
|

PART L

THE AUTHENTICITY OF,.THE
NEW TESTAMENT: |

BOOK I.
Of the Internal Evidence.

CHAP. I.
The Neceffiity of this Inquiry.

"TH faith of Chriftians is thus dit.
tinguifhed from all the other religions
of the world: it pronounces Jefus to
be the Redeemer of men, promifed by
God, the only caufe of their falvation,
and afferts his doétrine to be unde-
niably true. Should there, then, never
have exifted in the world a perfon,
who, in the time of the Roman Empe-
rour Auguftus, was born at Bethlehem
of Mary, a Jewifh virgin, and known

op to

2 The Authenticity of

to his countrymen by the name of Jefus;
fhould this Jefus never have performed
any miracles, in order to prove the
truth of his doétrines; fhould he not
have arifen from the dead; fhould he,
laftly, have never uttered any true
prophecies; then the Articles of the
Chriftian Faith are, without doubt, a
forgery. But fhould thefe faéts be in-
controvertibly true, then -it is equally
incontrovertible, that the religion of |
Chriftians is alfo true. The Chriftian
religion, therefore, is founded on faéts,
and confequently muft be proved in the
fame manner as we prove the truth of
other hiftorical fubjects.

The evidences which Chriftians ads
‘duce for the truth of thefe faéts, are
contained in the Books of the New
Teftament. The authors of thefe books
are the witneffes, on whofe — credit
Chriftians believe that hiftory. If, there-
fore, the credibility of thefe authors,
and of their writings, can be as ftri€tly

proved

the New Teflament:' — 3
proved as the’ credibility of a Tacitus,
Livy; Thuanus, or Burnet, then we
muft either give up the greateft, moft
Weautiful, and moft ufeful part of —
human knowledge, the whole of hiftory;
together with all its various branches,
or we muft confefs—that the Books of
the New Teftament, in all natwral and
not miraculous fubjecis, are worthy of
credit: he SE)

‘I acknowledge, that fhould the cte-
dibility of the writers of the New
Teftament be brought even to’ the very
higheft degree of hiftorical certainty,
that thé hifforical truth of the mira-
cles they relate would not be thereby
provéd. Ati author may be in the
higheft degree worthy of credit, and
yet may fometimes be overcome by the
_ weaknefs incident to human nature;
and relate abfurdities or forged mi-
racles as undoubted truths. We be-
lieve him in general; but if he relate
palpable abfurdities, found Reafon be-

BQ comes

Bess The Authenticity of

“comes an evidence againft him, and
her decifion is infinitely more to be
depended upon, than the credibility of
any author whatever. We believe him
in general; but if he relate muracles,
then his credit a/one is notfufficient juftly
to challenge our affent. ‘The more
uncommon an event is, fo much more
weighty muft be the proofs for it. If
it be a real miracle, then it demands
a perfeéily peculiar kind of proof, of
which I fhall fpeak in the Second Vo-
lume ofthis Work, when I treat of
the Truth of the Chriftian Religion.
According to thefe principles we decide
on all hiftorical writings. We acknow-
ledge Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus,
Tacitus, and Livy, to*be perfeétly cre-
dible authorities.. Neverthelefs, when
they fpeak of a certain divine vapour,
which arofe from the earth, and in-
{tilled into men a perfeét knowledge of
all futurity; or of a ring around the
nofe, out of which the devil was driven;

or

the New Tefiament. , 5

or when they inform us, that the ftatue
of Jupiter {poke and perfpired; that it
rained blood; that the Emperour Vef-
pafian, by a mere touch, gave fight to —
a blind man; in fuch cafes we claim
the privilege of refufing our belief, or
at leaft of entirely pafiing them over as
doubtful. |
There are no other rules enabling us,

to judge of the writings of the New
Teftament, than thofe by which we
judge of any other hiftorical work.
Now we are accuftomed to eftablith the
credibility of a book in the following
manner:—We firft prove the authenti-
city of the book itfelf, and then the
credibility of its author. Two things
belong to the proof of the authenticity ;
firft, that the book was really written
by the pretended author ; and fecondly,
that it is come down to us perfeétly
uncorrupted as it left the hands of its”
author. In this maaner we decide on
all hiftorical writings; and men are

BS unani-

6: The Authenticity of

unanimoufly agreed, that it is as un-.
reafonable to receive an evidence which
cannot be proved in this way, as to,
reject that which has endured _thefe,
proofs. A man of accuracy and inte-,
grity will never attempt to prove the
truth of an event, which is pretended to
have happened in the firft century,
from what are called the writings of
Dionyfius the Areopagite ; for the name
of Dionyfius, which they bear, is
forged, and they were not compofed
until the fifth or fixth century. Nor
will he, like Whifton, believe any thing,
on the authority of the larger epiftles.
of Ignatius. Ignatius did indeed write
epiftles; but whatever exifts in the
larger, that is not found in the {fmaller,
(and even thefe appear to be not ab-
folutely free from all interpolation) is
the addition of a more modern hand,
Orofius is no credible eyidence for the
truth of events, which are pretended to
liave taken place at the birth of Jefus;

nor

the New Teftament. 7
| |

nor will a critic affert any thing on the
credit of Simeon Metaphraftes.. The
former did not write until the fifth
century; and the latter is extremely
credulous and much to be fufpetted:
neither of them therefore deferves to be

efteemed a credible evidence. ;
Can, then, the three following propo-
fitions be proved :—Firft, that the New
Leftament was really written by the pre-
_tended contemporaries of Jefus ;—Se-
condly, that 2t 1s come down to us un-
corrupted ;—and, Thirdly, that the au-
thors of it are evidences of credibility ;
—ftill we cannot, on their credit alone,
prove the truth of the miracles they
rejate;—but thus much will be evident,
that Jefus did really preach the doc-
trine acknowledged by Chriftians; that
he wasreally born at Bethlehem, taught
publicly in Judea, in the reign of Ti-
- berius:—in a word, all the events
which are natural, and not miracu-
fous, muft be confidered as incontetftibly |
BA true,

8 The Authenticity of

true, on the authority of thefe evidences
alone.

==

CHAP. ITI.

Of the internal Traces of Authenticity
in the New Teftament.

WHEN Lord Bolingbroke, * in his
Letters on Hiftory, is pointing out the
neceflity of this ftudy to a Theologian,
he reproaches the defenders of Chrif-
tianity, that they are accuftomed to
tranfcribe from each other, and thereby
perpetuate the errors which have been
inadvertently admitted, or the fallacies
which have been purpofely contrived.
— Abbadie,” thefe are his own words,
“‘fays, in his famous book, that the
Gofpel of St. Matthew is cited by
Clemens, Bifhop of Rome, a difciple
of the apoftles; that Barnabas cites it

® Letter V.—vol. ii. p. 349351. of the gtoedit,
4 in

‘the New Teftament. a

in his epiftle ; that Ignatius and Po
lycarpe receive it; and that the fame
fathers, that give teftimony for Mat-
thew, give it likewife for Mark.—lIf
the fathers of the firft century do men-
tion fome paflages, that are agreeable to
what we read in our Evangelifts, will -
it follow that thefe fathers had the fame
gofpels before them? To fay fo is a
manifeft abufe of Hiftory, and quite
jinexcufable in writers that knew, or
fhould have known, that thefe fathers
- made ufe of other gofpels, wherein
fuch paffages might be contained, or
they might be preferved in unwritten
tradition. Befides which I could al-
moft venture to affirm, that thefe fa-
thers of the firft century do not ex-
prefsly name the gofpels we have of Mat-
thew, Mark, Luke, and John.” Thefe
affertions, which in fome refpe&s are
well founded, render.it of the greateft
importance to every enlightened Chrif-
fian, carefully to examine the evidences
| of

10 The Authenticity of

of the ecclefiaftical writers of the firft
centuries on this fubjeét.

In this inquiry we are principally
concerned with the period of the three
firft centuries, that is, from the times
of the apofiles down to Origin.—
For he has. given us the firft perfect
catalogue of the Scriptures of the New
Teftament; and fince his time thefe
catalogues, (or canons), and the evi-
dences for each of the books of the
New Teftament are fo numerous, that
it would be perfectly fuperfluous to at-
tempt to prove that fince the fourth
century the very fame books of the New
Teftament were held by Chriftians to
be divine, which we at prefent confefs
to be fuch®. Moreover, fubfequent
information is inadequate to eftablith
the authenticity of the Scriptures of

_ » Thefe canons are found according to the order of
the centuries, in Gerbardi de Maftricht Ganon eccle-
faflicus Scriptura Sacre.—The lateft and beft edition
of this work is that of Jena, 1725, in 8yo. |

the

the New Teftament. 1}
\

fhe New Teftament. It is too recent,
and the foregoing centuries were too
replete with fpurious and forged works
to be capable of inftru¢ting us confi-
dently what writings were actually com-
pofed by the difciples of Jefus in the
firft century. But of fo much greater
confequence to us is the period of the
three firft centuries; and it is a very
great error in the defenders of Chrif-
tianity, when they, either by contenting
themfelves merely with the well-known
evidences of Eufebius; or, by produ-
cing quotations from the primitive. wri-
ters, which: are perfectly indeterminate;
or, by accumulating fuch paflages from
them as have only a fimilitude in words
and. fentiments, bring a fufpicion on
the whole proof for the authenticity,
and confequently alfo for the divinity,
of thefe books.
- Whoever has been much engaged
with the writings of antiquity, its modes
of thinking and manners, will inftantly
perceive,

12 The Authenticity of

perceive, on reading thefe books, that
they are not the work of an impoftor,
but that they were compofed about the
firft century of the Roman monarchy;
juit as a connoiffeur in the fine arts will
immediately fee whether a painting, a
ftatue, or a gem, be the produétion of
antiquity, an original; or merely a
copy, and of a modern age. In the
Scriptures of the New Teftament there
cannot be difcovered the fmalleft trace
of deccit or forgery. On the contrary,
the charatter of the pretended times of
their compofition, and of their pre-
- tended authors, is fo deeply impreffed
on them, that a critic, by a mere peru-
fal, will difcover their authenticity. -

It muft appear remarkable to any
one who has ever employed himfelf in
diftinguifhing the genuine remains of
antiquity from the fpurious, that in
thefe writings there cannot be found
the fmalleft veftige of a forgery. What
are called the Canones and Con/ftitu-

tiones

the New Teftament.

tiones Apoftolorum, {peak of altars, of ;

the ordination of bifhops and _priefts,
of the fubje@tion of the Holy Ghoft to
the Son. The pretended writings of
Dionyfius, a Member of the Court of
Areopagus, refute Neftorian and An-
thropomorphitic errors; ufe the word
uwoseets in the doétrine of the trinity;
and {peak of monks, altars, and litur-
gies. And, in the fame manner, all
interpolated writings contain fomething
or other, a cuftom, a fcience, an ex-
preffion, which betrays a later age, and
does not efcape the eye of the critic-
On the contrary, we cannot meet with
any thing in the Scriptures of the New
Teftament, which does in the leaft degree
contradict the pretended charaé¢ter, time,
and connettion of their authors. And
not only this: we difcover in them fuch
. traces of genuinenefs as are indeed ex-

tremely ftriking.
The writers of the New, Teftament
are faid to have been Jews by birth,
and

14 The Authenticity of |
and of the Jewifh religion ; and this is
every where viftble. The mode of relating
their ftory, fo unaffected, and mixed with |
various fuperfluous phrafes, and trifling
collateral circumftances ; the nuiherous
allufions to the religious ceremonies of
the Jews; the fubjeé matter inter-
woven with words, phrafes, and thoughts
_of the Old Teftament; the numerous
parablés and allegories; the variety
of Hebraic words, conftruétions, and
phrafes in the Gteek of thé New Tef-
tament, betray an author to whom the
Jewith mode of thinking was quite na-
tural. |
They are faid to have lived in the
Sift century of the Roman monarchy.
This alfo is eafily and every where per-
ceptible. The exa& divifion of the
Jewith ftate; its conneétion with the
Romans; the internal tranfa&tions and
fermentations which took place in it at
the time of the firft Roman Emperors,
are not fo properly related by thé
writer

the New Teftaments 15

writer as prefuppofed as matters of
fat, which were univerfally known at
the time when he wrote. ‘The little un-
important, foreign events of the firft.
century, which in the books of the New
‘Veftament, and efpecially in the hifto-
rical, are touched on only cafually and
very flightly, in fo unftudied and un-
affeGted a manner, evince a writer, to
whofe memory thefe faéts were ftill
quite recent, and who prefuppofed that
his contemporaries were as well ac-
quainted with them as himfelf. I fhall
give examples of this in the courfe of

the work. ace
They are faid to have been zmme-
diate witnefjes of their narratives, or to
have themfelves feen and heard what.
they relate. Even this circumftance is.
every where clearly difcoverable. ‘They
relate with the confidence of men who
are convinced that their readers already
know that they themfelves faw and ex-
perienced all, and that their aflertions
may

16 The Authenticity of

may therefore be confidered as proofs.
They relate, without mentioning the —
eras of their hiftory, or carefully cha-
racterifing the perfon of whom. they
make mention: in fhort, like men who
wrote for readers that were their con-
temporaries, that lived at the very time
in which their hiftory happened, and
knew, or might eafily have known, the
perfons themfelves.

They are faid to have been all, ex-
cept one, unlearned men. And who
does not remark in the writings of
St. Matthew, St. Mark; St. Luke, St.
John, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude,
that they were compofed by perfons
who were indeed perfeétly certain of the
faéts they relate; poffeffed alfo of found
judgment, and in part of excellent na-
tural talents, yet totally devoid of learn-
ing, and what is properly called fcience ?
We find in their works no profound in-
ferences; no refutations which betray
fubtilty ; no expreffions or fimilies

taken

the New Teftament. * 17
takem from the: walks of feietice} iio.
acquired knowledge ‘of the world!) Ti
évery part the tone of an honeft’ hif-
torian is perceptible, ‘but’ of ‘one to
whom it never oceurtéd to argue’ on
his’ narrative’ as‘a /philofopher. '‘ Com-
pare their writings with thofe’ of’ St.
Paul. If we even put) out of the
queftion the Epiftle to the ‘Hebrews,
which is replete with Jewith learning
yet what profound inferences are drawn
in the’ Epiftle’ ‘to’ the Romans *? What
a variety of fine knowledge, and how
much ddroitnefs in defending himfelf
with delicacy and fubtilty: againft the
faccufations of his enemies, are be-
trayed in the Epifiles to the Corin-
thians? With what’ acutenefs does he
oppofé the doétrine of the neceffity of
civeumcifion, and of adherence to
the Mofaic law, in the Epiftle to ‘the
Galatians’? The Epiftles to the Ephe-
fians, Philippians, Colofiians, and Thef-

¢ Particularly ch, v. 9, d ch, iii.—v.

c falonians,

18 The Authenticity of

falonians, contain a variety of fimilies
taken from profane knowledge; allu-
fions to foreign cuftoms; a luxuriance
of ideas; pathethic and ftrong refu-.
tations of accufations®. The Epiftles
to Timothy and Titus fhew in parti-
cular a mind which, from experience
and philofophic obfervation of the
world, had obtained confiderable le-
giflative knowledge. And the Epiftle
to Philemon has almoft, if I may be
allowed to fay it, the ftyle of courtly
urbanity. . }
If, therefore, we knew nothing of
the real authors of thefe books, and
were to form our judgment of them
only from what we difcover internally,
we fhould fuppofe that they were writ-
ten by native Jews, during the firft
century, and by immediate witneffes,
and that only one of them was a fcho-

e For example, Ephef. ii. 20—22. iii, 14—29.
iv. 9. 10+ Vs 3 vie 10—17+ Philip. ii, 57. Coloff; iis
14—18, 1 Thefl, ivy. 1318, &c,

lar.

the New Teftament. © 19
jaf.—This matter deferves a more ani-
ple inquiry. |

The Scripture’ of thé New Teftament
_ aré) compofed in the Greek language.
This agrees very accurately with the
accounts we have of their authors, and
of the time and defign of their com-
pofition. The Greek language was at
’ that period, in the firft century of the
Roman monarchy, and had been, fince
Alexarider the Great, a kind of uni-
verfal language, juft as the French is.
at prefent. It was underftood and
_ fpoken by Greeks, by Romans, and by”
Jews. The greater part of the Chrif-
tianis alfo, efpeécially of thofe to whom
the Epiftles-of the New Teftament are
addreffed, would not have compre-
hended them fo univérfally in any other
language. At Corinth, Theffalonica,
Coloffe, and in Galatia, fearcely was
another language underftood. Befides
| tie Latin and Aramean tongues, the.
cg Greek |

20 The Authenticity of

Greek alfo was underftood at Rome,
and by the Jews in Paleftine. |...
The Greek, in which the New Tef-
tament is written, is vot pure and ele-
gant Greek, fuch as was written, by
Plato, Xenophon, Polybius, or Plu-_
tarch;. but is intermixed with many
Hebraic fignifications,, phrafes, and
confirudions. It refembles pure. claf-
fical Greek as, much. probably as. the
French or German, written or. fpoken
by a native Englifhman, which muft,be
conftantly mixed with fome Anglici{ms,.
refembles the languages of Drefden, or.
of..Paris.. ‘This. is..a very, firiking
mark of the authenticity of thefe wri-
tings. Had the Greek of, the New
‘Teftament been pure, elegant, claffical,
it. would be evident that the writers
were either mative Greeks, or feholars
who had ftudied Greek ; as the writings
of Philo or, Flavius Jofephus . betray
the fcholar. But, fince we find it in-
termixed with many. peculiarities be-
longing

the New Tefiament. 21

\

Jonging exclufively to the Hebrew or
Chaldee, and Syriac, (the two languages
- fpoken in common life by the Jews of
Paleftine) it is evident, from this He-
braic Greek, that the writers were u7-
learned, and Jews by birth. — .

The Scriptures of the New Tefta-
ment are compofed in a ftyle, which
_ -wery evidently betrays that their au-
thors were born and educated in the
Jewifh religion. We find in them
conftant allufions to offerings, priefts,
the temple, articles of drefs, and other
parts of the Jewith divine fervice. The
- fentiments of the Old Teftament are
rather interwoven into the body of
them, than quoted. ‘To make Jefus a
fin-offering ; to fprinkle with the blood
of Jefus; to be born again; to be a
temple of God: who does not recog-
nize the Jew in thefe expreffions?—
When, in the Epiftle to the Romans‘,
the then exifting fufferings and perfe-

f Chap. viii. 36,
3 cutions

29 The Authenticity of

cutions of the Chriftians are defcribea
in the words of the 44th Pfalm—JAs it
23 written, Kor thy fake we are killed:
all the day long ; we are accounted as
Sheep for the flaughter: when the mur-
der of the infants at-Bethlehem ° is told
alfo in the language of Jeremiah—Jn
Rama was there a voice heard, la-
mentation, and weeping, and great
mourning, Rachel weeping for her
children, and would not be comforted:
when the writer of the Epiftle to the
Romans * -exprefles the common fen-
timent, that he taught Chriftianity in
no place where another had already
taught before him, with a paflage from
the Old Teftament—J /trived to preach
the gofpel, not where Chrifét was named
—but, as it is written, To whom he was
not {poken of, they shall. fee; and they
that have not heard, shall underfiand :

what attentive reader will not difcern
from fuch conftant and unfolicited

& Mat. ii, 17, 38. Chap. xv. 20, 21.
accommea-

the New Teftament. 23

accommodations of the phrafeology of
the Old Teftament, a writer to whom
the religious language of the Jews was,
as it were, a mother-tongue?

The Scriptures of the New Tefta- .
ment are all, exeept thofe which bear
the name of St. Paul, very evidently
written in @ ftyle totally devoid of all
cultivation, and with the fimplicity of
unlearned men. We do not find in
them any profound inferences, acute
refutations, ftudied knowledge of the
world; or-any expreffions or compac
rifons taken from aftronomy, phyfics,
anatomy, poefy, architecture, or indeed
from any of the arts or fciences.—
On the contrary, the writers refate,
teach, exhort, exaGly as men of found
underftanding and good principles, but
devoid of any cultivation or learning,
would relate, teach, and exhort. Com-
mon expreffions of common life; va-
rious repetitions, and circumftances per-
feétly fuperfluous ; a want of ftri&t con-

(Pear * neétion

a4 The Authenticity of

neCiion and method; a faulty conftruc;
tion; thefe conftitute the language of —
men, whofe intellectual powers may be
found indeed, but, entirely unculti,
vated.

Not. Jefs worthy of remark is the
accuracy of many wmdividual. cir-
cumfiances of their narrative. . Jiefus,
they fay, was born under the Roman
' Emperour Auguftus; began his mi-
niftry in the fifteenth year of Tiberius,
and ‘was put to death about three years
and a, half afterwards ; that on the
featt of the Pafiover, Pilate, a Roman
Governour, condemned him to death;
that St. Paul defended himfelf before
the Roman Govyernours, Feftus and
Felix, before the Jewith King Agrippa,
&c.—An impoftor would not write fo
circumftantially. :

There are moreover certain hiffori-
cal circumftances refpeéting the poli-
tical and religious conftitutions of the
world mentioned, in the Scriptures of

‘ i nai athe ihe

the New Tefiament. | 25

the. New Teftament, which point out.
inconteftibly the time when they were
written. Paleftine is divided into three
provinces—Judea, Samaria, and Ga-
lilee.) This country at that time is
fubject to the Romans, but had been
heretofore ruled by its own kings; the
Jews have not the abfolute power of
life and death; at Jerufalem is a Ro-
man Governour. The nation is dif-
contented with the Roman fovereignty ;
refufes to pay tribute, and is inclined
to revolt. ‘Two religious fects have.
the principal fway among them, viz.
the .Pharifees and the ‘Sadducees; the
former, who teach a mechanical reli-
gion, deceive and tyrannize over the
people, and yet are almoft idolized by
them; the latter, who adopt an epicu-
rean philofophy, are ftrongly fupported
by the principal charaéters of the na-
tion. The temple of Jerufalem is ftill
ftanding, andis annually vifited by a great
number of the Jews who are fcattered
ri | abroad

26 The Authenticity of

abroad in different parts of the world,
Thefe, and fimilar circumftances, are
rather prefuppofed as univerfally known,
than related by the authors of thefe
writings; and they agree moft exattly
with the condition of the Jews and the
Roman empire in the firft century of
the Roman monarchy.—More will be
faid on this fubjeét hereafter, in the
inquiry into the Credibility of thefe
writers.

BOOK

the New Ti cflament, ae

BOOK I.

The external or decifive Evidence for the

Authenticity of the New Teftameni,

wiz. the pofitive Tefiimonies of Wit-
neffes in the tine ge Centuries.

- CHAP, I.

- *Witneffes in the firfe Century.

. NOTWITHSTANDING what has
been faid above, I confefs that it is not
abfolutely impoffible but that a man of
wery great talents and extenfive learn-
ing might, as it were, abfolutely for-
get himfelf; might, for a time, lay
afide his natural modes of thinking and
manners, and change himfelf into a
perfectly different perfon. But the
teftimonies of the oldeft.and moft cre-
dible writers place it beyond all doubt,
that the Books of our New Teftament
were written by the pretended authors,
St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, St.

John, —

28 The Authenticity of

John, St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James,
and St. Jude, and at the pretended times.

In this proof I thall quote fuch paf-
fages only, wherein thefe writers appeal
either by name, or exprefsly to thofe
books ; and honeftly confefs the doubts
which, to an impartial fearcher after
truth, will occur in this inquiry. I
fhall thus hinder the enemies of Chrif-
tianity from ufing that argument which
Bolingbroke has brought againft it’;
and if in this examination nothing be
overcharged; but, on the contrary, if
the love of truth, and the firiéte/t fe-
verity of inquiry, be every where dif-
coverable, additional weight, I truft,
will be given to my proof.

; SECT. &.
The Origin and State of Chriffianity
in the firft Century.
JESUS, the Chrift, was born in the
forty-firft year of the government of

i See above, page 8.
the

the New Teftament. 29

the Roman Emperour, Auguftus, con-
fequently, four -years..earlier than the
- commonly. received ‘computation, . or
one. thoufand eight, hundred. and eight
years before the prefent time; he taught
perfonally during three years and a half
in: Judea, Samaria, and Galilee; and
at his death left one hundred and fifty
followers of his religion, who were all
perfons of ow birth, and entirely def-
titute of that confequence which learn-
ing or temporal greatnefs can. beftow".
About feven weeks, after. his death, the
| twelve men, who, had been his moft
. intimate friends, began to preach his
religion i in, the world... On the firft day
of their preaching, “they. eftablithed in
Jerufalem a;community of Chriftians,
confifting of more than three thoufand
perfons', And in lefs than, fixty years —
there exifted numerous and flourifhing
communities of Chriftians in Afia, as
well i in the eaftern parts towards Perfia,
CORAM. OU ON ARs BU
| and

30 The Authenticity of

and India, ‘on the Ganges, asin thé
weftérn; in Africa, at. Alexandria and
other places; and in Eutopé, in’'Ma:
cedonia, Greece, nay even at Rome,
at that time the metropolis of thé
world. Thus, at the end of the ‘firft
century, that fmall unknown fountaiti,
the parent community at Jerifaleni,
was become a ftream, which had fpread
itfelf over every part of the known
globe.

Thefe Chriftian communities formed
and fupported themfelves, notwith-
ftanding the oppofition of the whole
then exifting world. The Jews arofe
againft their members, who taught the
abolition of that law which they almoft
idolized, and reprefented him whom
they had crucified, as the teacher and
Saviour of the world. They were then,
as at prefent, difperfed over all thé
regions of the known earth; and
wherever the Chriftians came, there
they .found powerful, enraged, and

cruel

the New Tefianent.. 3}

cruel enemies. To complete their mi-
fery, the Emperour Nero declared him-
felf alfo againft them, and put many of
-them to death by means the moft ter- |
rible. Thus. oppreffed and perfecuted
on all fides, they could neither confefs
and praétice their religion openly, nor
eftablifh any external union among
themfelves; but every feparate com-,

munity was neceflitated to endeavour
to govern and to fupport itfelf in the
beft manner it was able. Even in this
infant ftate of Chriftianity, there arofe
a formal fchifm among themfelves: the
‘difciples, who had been formerly Jews,
infifted on retaining their paternal law,
and mixed with Chriftianity the cere-
monies of Judaifm; while the gentile
conyerts confidered the abolition of the
~ Jaw of Mofes to be an effential article
of the new religion, and would be
guided by the doétrine of J fas Chrift

alone™.
m Aéts xv. Rom. xiv.

SECT,

$8 —--: The Authenticityof

Baia. Oe 0
The Apoftolical Fathers.

THIS want of external union was
fupplied in a certain degree by dif-
ferent writings, circulated among them
by their teachers, of which the’ greater,
part is now loft. Only five works,
which make pretenfions to that early
age, are come down to us; and thefe
bear the names of five men, at that
time: very celebrated—Barnabas, Cle-
ment, Hermas, Ignatius, and Polycarp.
ang are called apoftolical fathers”,
becaufe

* The mof complete and accurate edition of thefé
works is that which was edited by John Baptift Co-
telier, under the titleS. S. Patrum, qui temporibus
Apoftolerum floruerunt, Barnabz, Clementis, Herm,
Ignatii, Polycarpi, opera vera et fuppofititia. Una
cum Clementis, Ignatii, Polycarpi Aétis atque Mar-
tyriis; to which he has added very learned annota-
tions and differtations. The laft and beft editiow is
that of Amfterdam, 1724; 2 vol. fol. publithed under
the infpection of John Le Clerc. Befides. the annota-

tions

the New Ti eftament. ~ 38

becaufe they were the immediate. dif-
“ciples of the Apoftles. Their high
antiquity, and ftill more their perfeét
acquaintance with the Apoftles, render
them particularly important. to us in
our prefent inquiry.

1. Barnabas.

BARNABAS was appointed, in con-
junction with St. Paul the moft emi-
hent of the’ firft preachers of Chrif-
tianity, to publifh the religion of Chrift
among the Gentiles, after they had
made many thoufand converts among
the Jews and Samaritans°®; and. is. not
only placed on a perfeét equality with
him’, but is alfo exprefsly ftiled an
‘tions of the editor, it contains a variety of new and
important additions, which are mentioned in the title.
Le Clerc himfelf has pointed out the advantages of
this edition in the Biblioth. ancienne et mod. tom. xxi.
‘part 2. p. 237. feq. An ufeful abridgement of thefe
writings is to be found.in Rofler’s Library of the Ec-
clefiaftical Fathers. .

o Aéts xiii. 2; 3.

P A&ts xiii. 2.3. 46.47. 1 Corinth. ix. 4—7.

D Apottle.

34 The Authenticity of

Apofile*. He left behind him an
epiftle, which, according to Clement of
Alexandria‘, Origen’, Eufebius‘, and
Jerom", was held in the greateft efteem
by the ancients. But whether the work,
which we now have under this name”,
be the very fame which Barnabas wrote,
and the above-mentioned men read,

q A&ts xiv. 14.—Comp. verie-4.

? Stromata Lib. ii. cap. 20.) p. 490. Lib. v.
tap. 8. p. 677. cap. 10. p. 683. 84. Potter's Edit.
Oxford, 715 fol. In thefe places Clement cites whole
paflages from the Epiftle of Barnabas, which are like-
wife found in that which we have at prefent.

# De principiis Lib. iii. cap. 4. p. 140, and contra
Celfum Lib. i. cap. 63. p. 378. Charles De la Rue,
and Charles Vincent De la Rue, have edited at Paris all
the genuine works of Origen, which are ftill extant,
1733--1759. iv. vol. fol. The pafiages pointed out
above are in tom. i.—For an account of this edit. of
Origen, fee Ernefti theol. Biblioth. Vol. vii. p. 371.

t Hiftor. Eccles. Lib. vi. cap. 13, 14. p. 272. 73.
vol. i, edit, Guilielmi Reading, who has edited toge~
ther the ecclefiaftical hiftories of Eufebius, Socrates,
Sozomen, Theodoret, Evagrius, Philoftorgius, and
Theodorus—Cambridge, 720, iii. vol. fol.

& De Vir. illuftr. cap. 6.

¥ See Coteler, Patr. Apoftolic. vol. i. p. 15,.—66.

is

the New Teftament. © 35

is here unimportant, fince it quotes, as.
we fhall fee hereafter, not a fingle paf-
fage of the New Teftament. It: con-
tains indeed now the fame. pafiages
which Clement and Origen have cited
from ‘it. But the unnatural mode. of
interpretation, (known by the name of
myftical) which prevails in it; the fa-
“bles of the Hyzena, &c. which the author
believed; and the affertion that the
world would’ be deftroyed in’ its: fix
thoufandth year, which is dire€tly con-
tradictory to the affurances of the New .
Teftament, that the time when it fhould
take place was perfectly unknown, make
it certain, that this epiftle was not
‘written by that Barnabas, who was an
Apoftle. Neverthelefs, the moft learned
in ancient hiftory are agreed, that it
was compofed not later than the fe-
cond century*. And we may allow
thus much to the teftimonies of the pri-

x See Rofler’s Library of the Ecclefiaftical Fa-

thers, i. 3. ;
DQ mitive

36 The Authenticity of

mitive writers, that it was written by a
Chriftian teacher, of the name of Bar-
nabas. a fel

The principal defign of this epiftle,
is to inculcate the propofition which
St. Paul in his writings fo often repeats,
‘and labours fo anxioufly to prove,
namely, that Chrifizans are free from
all obligation to the law of Mofes. But
the author no where refers to. this
Apoftle. St. Paul had already at that
time written all his Epiftles: he com-
pofed the laft. (the fecond to Timothy)
‘during his fecond, imprifonment. at
Rome, in the year of Chrift fixty-feven;
and Barnabas: wrote his in the year
feventy. They could not have been
unknown to him who was the fellow-
apoftle and affiftant of St. Paul. This
is another argument which tends to
prove that this epiftle, even if com-
pofed by a certain Barnabas, did not
come from the celebrated Apoftle of
that name.

To

the New Teflament. - 37

To him who reads’ this epiftle with-
eut any intention of producing’ tefti-
monies from it in fupport of the Scrip-
tures of the New Teftament, fcarcely
any will be perceptible. What might
be produced with the greateft ap-
pearance of probability, are two paf-
fages which have been generally brought
forward as an evidence for the Gofpel |
of St. Matthew’. Barnabas is fpeak-
ing in the feventh chapter of the ‘{uf~
ferings of Chrift, and delivers this as
one of his fayings:—Zhey who will fee
me and obtain my kingdom, mu/ft recevve
me with many fufferings and affli&ions*.
And in the fourth chapter he intro-
duces— Many. are called,: but few
chofen, as the declaration of certain
divine Scriptures. For he makes ufe
of a phrafe which was commonly em+

_y See Lardner’s Credibility, vol. ii... ps. 145 15, of

the edition of his works, publifhed in 1788,, |
2 “Ouray Quzivy os Osrovres we der xas erbacbas wov
wns Parsrercas, oPerrAougs OrrBevres nes maborres Aa Resy,
yp-—Cotel. p+ 24-
; D3 ployed

38 The Authenticity of

ployed: by the Jews when they quoted
their facred books, J¢ ts writien.—
Let us beware, {ays he*, left it should
happen to us, as it is written, There are
many called; few chofen.

Thefe paflages, it is true, exift in

the fame, or in very fimilar words in the
- Gofpel of St. Matthew. But our au-
thor does not point out, by a fingle
word, by whem thofe expreffions were
written, or where they are to be found.
The firft paflage does not even prove
that the declaration of Chrift alluded
to, had been taken from any written
information. He might, with equal
probability, have received it from the
oral narration of the Apoftles. And
with refpeé to the fecond, I find no
trace, that Barnabas means here ex-
prefsly the Gofpel of St. Matthew. If

2 Almoft the -five firft chapters are wanting in the
original. In the old Latin verfion the paflage ftands
thus, p. 6o:—Adtendamus ergo, ne forte, /icut frip-
tum eff, Multi vocati, ee electi, invehiamur.

a perfon,

the New Teftament. 39

a perfon, for example, fhould’ read iw
’ Plutarch—“‘ We find it related, that
the letter of Marcellus, on being re-
ceived at Rome, did not alleviate the
forrow of the Romans, but rather in-
ftilled more terror into them’;” he
would conclude from this’ paflage—
** that in the time of Plutarch, credible
documents concerning the affairs of
the Romans fomewhere exifted ;’—but
he would not be inclined to prove from
it, that Livy had written a Roman
hiftory.

If we caft our eyes on the catalogue
of fcriptural paffages, which the Apof-
tolical Fathers are faid to have quoted,

b This paffage is a€tually found in the above men-
_ tioned author, in his lifeof. Marcellus, Vitar. Parall.
‘yols. ii. p»'273. edit. London. 729. in v. vol. 4to. Heis |
fpgaking-of a letter, in which the Proconful comforts
the Romans after.afevere defeat which they had fuf-
fered from Hannibal, ix this manner :—‘‘ For he him-
felf. was. on his march to:drive Hannibal out. of the
country.—Kai tavre ty, (continues Plutarch) 6 AsGt0s
Qacwy averyyucrbevrc TH YRLUULOTH AN TNS AvINS APEAELY
urAw Tw PoBy mpocberves-”

D 4 in

40 The Authenticity of

in the. fecond volume of Cotelerius,
and then refic& that their genuine re-
mains are extremely fhort, we fhall be
induced to conclude that thefe authors:
have done nothing elfe than copy the
Bible. Lardner, indeed, is more rigid
in the feleétion of thefe. teftimonies;
yet the greater part of the paflages
which he has quoted are in no refpeét
convincing. I will not delay the
reader with the confideration of the
other teftimonies‘, as I have fhewn by
the two pafiages which are generally
dwelt upon as of the greateft weight,
that Barnabas cannot be placed in the
number of evidences for the Authen-
ticity of the New Teftament.

© “ Give to every one that afketh thee’—ITavei
avrovrTs oe dbdov, fays Barnabas, ch. 19. It is Pree
tended that this is a proof of his havirig readthe Gofpel
of St. Matthew, becaufe the fame command is found in
it, ch. v. 42. Dr. Lardner himfelf perceives the

weaknefs of this proof ; and therefore fays, p. 16-~* It

may be queftioned, whether he refers at all to any
written gofpel.”

2. Clemens

the New Teftament. AY

9. Clement of Rome.
* UNDER the name of Clement, who
was Bifhop of Rome, and an: affiftant
of the Apoftle St. Paul’, we have dif-
ferent writings; but of thefe only the
two epiftles to the Chriftian community
at Corinth can offer we pretenfion to
this title.

Of the Second epifile ‘as it is called,’
there is only a fragment’ remaining*,’
which neverthelefs exhibits pretty evi-
dent marks of’ forgery. “Irenzeus ‘ was’
acquainted with only one epiftle of
Clement, and from this-he has quoted.

4 Philip. iv. 3.

* See Coteler. vol. i. 185—189. John Lewis Frey
alfo has publifhed an accurate edition of the works of
Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, (Bafel. 1742. 8vo.)
which I fhall ufe for the purpofe of quotation in the
following work, on account of its conveniency. What
remains of that which is called the fecond epittle, ftands
p> 38-103.

~ # Adverfus hzrefes, Lib. iii. cap- 3. § 3. p. ike of

the edition which was publifhed at Paris, by Renatus
Maffuet, 1710, fol.

~ Enfebius.

4. «The Authenticity of
Eufebius* was indeed informed of this
_fecond epiftle ; but he rejeéts it, be--
cawfe he cannot difcover any traces of it
among the ancients. Dionyfius, Bifhop
of «Corinth,, in the fecond. century,
mentions only one epiftle; and both
Clement of Alexandria, and Origen,
have quoted the firft, but never noticed
the fecond, as has been remarked
by Grabe*.—The tenour itfelf of this
fragment betrays, that it isnot the work
of Clement: for it cites the Gofpels
often, and by name, which is um-
verfally contrary to the cuftom of the

genuine epiftle’.

& Hift. Eccl. Lib: iii. cap. 38. p. 134.—-5Ts won
TOUS MEyaLOUS MUTN XEYENLEVOUS bo LEY>

~ hIn the Spicileg. Patrum et hereticorum Seculi,
1—3, which was publifhed at Oxford, 1698 and 1700,
in zvol. in 8vo. Vol. i. p. 266—6o.

i See Lardner’s Credibility, vol. ii. p. 49.—The
fame circumftance makes me fufpect the genuinenefs
of the two Syriac epiftles, which Wetftein has pub-
lifhed at the end of his Greek Teftament, and de-
fended as genuine. But the filence of antiquity, and

the recommendation of celibacy found therein, compel
us abfolutely to rejeé& them,
: But

the-New Teftameni. : 43

_. But the teftimonies of the ancients,
for what is called the jirfé epifile, are
much more numerous and complete*.
Befides ‘the paflages quoted above, we
find in Eufebius, in two different places,
very ample information ‘concerning it.
-In the third book of the Ecclefiaftical
Hiftory, chap. xvi’. he fays—‘ Of this
Clement we have an important and
excellent epiftle, which is univerfally
received as genuine. He wrote it in the
name of the community at Rome to
that at Corinth, in which great diffen-
fons at that time exifted. This epiitle

is read, as we know, /agreeably to an

old cuftom, in mof of the churches.

And that fuch diffenfions did aGually

at that time exift at Corinth, Hegefippus

is an incontrovertible evidence.” The
epiftle then which the ancients ‘held to
be a genuine work of the Roman Cle-

® It ftands im Cotelerius, vol. i. p. 14.5—282. and in
Frey; p.- 1—78. .
} Page 107, 108.

ment,

44 The Authenticity of

ment, was written in the name of the
community at Rome to the Chriftians
at Corinth, on account of fome diffen-
fions which had arifen among them.—
In the thirty-eighth chapter of the fame
book, he points out the contents of that
epiftle more amply. “ In this epiftle,”
fays he", “Clement ufes many fenti-
ments taken from the Epiftle to. the
Hebrews; he even’ quotes fome word
for word: and hence it is manifeft, that
that Epiftle (to the Hebrews) is not a
modern compofition, but in all pro-
bability has been juftly placed among
the writings of the Apoftle (St. Paul).
This epiftle which St.Paul wrote to the
Hebrews in their mother-tongue, was
tranflated, as fome afiert, by the Evan-
gelift St. Luke; or, according to the
opinion of others, by this. very. Cle-
ment; and the latter fuppofition is. the
more probable, becaufe the epiftle of
Clement, and that to the Hebrews, are

m Page 134+
written

the New Tefiament. >

written in a fimilar ftyle, sci: the fen-
timents in ‘both works wR wen
harmonife together.”

‘The -epiftle which we ftill poffefs
agrees accurately with this defcription.
It is written in the name of ‘the com-
munity at» Rome ‘to the Chriftians at_
Corinth, and to difluade them from dif-
fenfions’ and faétions, and particularly
from.an oppofition to their Prefbyters,
or Teachers.—The importance and ex-
cellence which Eufebius, and the force
which Ireneus, in the above-mentioned
pafiage, faw in it, muft be’ afcribed to
that inclination of the ancients to con-
fider every thing as beautiful, excel-
lent and forcible, which came from a
venerable teacher. The epiftle, judged.
impartially, is written’ in a tedious
_ ftyle; the author repeats the fame
fubje&t, probably ten times, without
giving it additional. force, is rich in
unmeaning. epithets, wrefts feripturak
paffages to his purpole, and often ex-

| tends

46 The Authenticity of

tends a matter too far, in order te
deduce from it an argument which he
fuppofed good and edifying. Not-
withftanding thefe defeéis, it is one of
the moft valuable remains of antiquity:
Even its great age makes it refpe€table;
for at the lateft it was compofed in the
‘laft. ten years of the firft century; moft
probably. about the year 96° The
credit of its author, and particularly
the circumftance of its having been
written im the name of an entire and
very confiderable community, add ex-
traordinary weight to its teftimony. It
thus. becomes.a public document, and
contains not the evidence of a private
individual, but of the whole Church at
Rome.

‘We muft therefore greatly: regret,
that. it now appears neither fufficiently

« Formerly I was of the ufual opinion; that this
epiftle was written before the deftrudtion of Ferufalem.
But Lardner has pfoduced arguments, which appear to
me incontrovertible, that it muft be) afcribed to the
year 96,—Credibility, vol. ii. p. 2328.

correct
I

the New Teftament: == 4G
correét nor perfeét. Only a fingle ma-
nufcript of it is come down to us. In
this fome leaves are wanting; and this
defeét appears to be in that very part
which regards. the information on the
fcriptural books. For in all probabi-
lity that is wanting which Eufebius, in
the above-mentioned paffage°, and Ire-
neous Adv. heres’, have quoted from
it.—-Eufebius fays, that Clement in this
epifile, had adopted many fentiments —
of the Epiftle to the Hebrews, and
even tranfcribed. fome. paflages.. The
former are found indeed in the epiftle,
which {till exifts, but not the latter:
unlefs we fuppofe that the. words. of
Eufebius are not to betaken in their
moft literal meaning, But Irenzus, in
proof of the antiquity of the then.pre-
vailing do€trine, appeals to this: epiftle
of Clement. ‘‘In it,” thefe are his
words, ‘he delivers the doétrine which
he had very lately received from the
° Bw iii. ch, 98, © —P Lib. iii, cap. 3. § 3- p-.275:
Apoftles;

AS The Authenticity of

Apofiles; viz. that there is one Almighty
God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth ;
who formed man, brought in the de-
luge, called Abraham, conduéted the
Jewith people out of Egypt, {pake to
Mofes, gave the law and fent the pro-
phets; who has prepared fire for the
devil and his angels; that.this God is de-
clared by the Church to be the Father
of Jefus Chrift, every one who choofes
may, fee himfelf from this epiftle’.”

4 The Five Books againft Herefies, by Irenzus, are
extant at prefent, except a few fragments preferved by
Greek ecclefiaftical writers, only in an antient Latin
verfion. In the paffage quoted above, the tranflator
ufes the word Scriptura—‘ Ex ipfa Scriptura, qui
velint, difcere poffunt.""—Probably, therefore, the word
in the original was yew?n. But the tranflator in the
feétion juft preceding, which Eufebius has preferved in
the Greek, having rendered the fame word by Epiftle,
ought alfo to have tranflated it in the fame manner here ;
tgresesAcy hey Pwun exxrnoia yeaduyy ixavwrarny Toss
KogwwOsorc, he tranflates—Scripfit, que eft Rome, ec-
clefia, potentiffimas Jiteras Corinthiis.—This’ remark
proves how void of foundation is the accufation which
is made by the enemies of Chriftianity, that Irenzus.
in this place pronounces the epiftle of Clement to be
(Scriptura) a divine Scripture.

All

the New Teftament. : 49

Ail this alfo is wanting in the epifile
which has defcended te us. Ireneus
does not indeed pofitively affert, (as
Mill on Matth. xxv. 41. appears to
adopt) that Clement had taken that
dottrine from the apoftolical writings ;
he only fays, that he had received it
from the Apoftles. Neverthelets, his
information ftill proves, that as early
as the firft century the very fume
fuftem, in refpe® to the above-men-
tioned points, was adopted by the Chrif= ~
tians, which we find in our prefent
Scriptures of the New Tefiament.—
_ Perhaps Clement had been more co-
pious on this fubjeét, which Ireneus
has only quoted in the form of extracts.
If this be the cafe, the lofs is of ftill
greater moment. | 7
./ Clement in this epiftle appeals by
name to an Epiftle of St. Paul to the
Corinthians, in which he {peaks of
fattions among them; one of which
declared Peter, another Apollos, and a
E third

50 The Authenticity of.

third Paul for their head’. In order
to recommend unity and univerfal love
to the Corinthians, he ufes a fimilitude.
** Confider,” fays he*, ‘ our bodies. —
The head is nothing without the feet,
fo neither the feet without the head.
Even the moft inconfiderable members
are very neceflary and ufeful to the
whole body. They all harmonife with,
and are fubjeét to, one another, for the
prefervation of the whole.” St. Paul
ufes * the very fame fimilitude for the
very fame purpofe.—In the forty-fixth
chap. (p. 69) he exhorts them to unity.

* Ch. xlvii. p. 70.—‘ Look into the Epiftle of, St.
Paul the Apoftle. What has he there written to you in
the very beginning, in the beginning of Chriftianity ?*”
(Thus I render the words, ev weyn EvayysAsov, which
phrafe is commonly ufed in this fenfe by the ecclefiaftical
writers. This muft not therefore be underftood of a
Gofpel written by St. Paul; which is alfo evident
from the context.)—** Through the inftigation of the
Spirit, he admonifhes you concerning himfelf and Pe-
ter and Apollos, becaufe that even then you did form
parties.””

® Ch. xxxvil. p. 57.

t x Corinth. xii. 1226,

Q and

the New Teftament. | 51

and love, ‘ becaufe they would other-
_wife lacerate the members of Chrift,
and tear them from one another; and
would rage againft their own bodies,
and moft fenfelefsly forget, that we are
members one of another.’ St. Paul
alfo, 1 Cor. xil. 27. has employed the
fame argument.—He makes “a repre-
fentation of charity, which is taken
almoft entirely from 1 Cor. xiii.
“Charity covers a multitude of fins.
. It undertakes all work, it bears all with
patience. In charity there is no mean-
nefs, no pride.— Charity does all things
with unity. Through charity the chofen
of God are made _ perfett.”—Thus
much then is unguweftionable from the
evidence of Clement, that the Lirf#
Epifile to the Corinthians, was a€tually

written by the Apoftle Paz/, in the firft
century.

In. the thirty-fixth chapter” , Cle-
nient makes the very fame comparifon

«Ch, xlix, p. 73. W Page 55; 56.
E 2: between

52 The Authenticity of

between Chrift and the angels; and
ufes the very fame arguments to prove
his divinity, as are found in the Epiftle
to the Hebrews, chap. i. 3—13. The
whole paflage deferves to be fubmitted
_ to the veader, that he may himfelf
judge of its concordance with the
above-mentioned part of the Epiftle to
the Hebrews.—Clement had before faid
of Jefus, That he alone was the High
Prieft, through whom God would lead
us to the enjoyment of immortal wif-
dom; ‘‘ who,” he continues, “ is the
brightnefs of his Majefty, (awavyacjum
TNS EY AaAWoULHS aurou ) and by fo much
greater than the angels, as he has by
inheritance obtained a more excellent
name than they. For fo it is written:
(Pfalm civ. 4.) Who maketh his
angels fpirits, and his minifters a flame
of fire. But of his Son, thus faid the
Lord: Thou aft my Son, this day
have I begotten thee. Atk of me, and
I will give thee the heathen for thine

inhe-

the New Teftament. 53

inheritance, and the whole earth (ra
mepare ns yns) for thy pofleflion. And
again he faith unto him, Sit on my
right hand, until I make thy enemies
thy footftool."—-However accurately
this pafflage may harmonife with the .
firft chapter of the Epiftle to the He-
brews, yet I do not pretend.to draw
a conclufion from it for the authenti-
city of that Epiftle. Clement might
have derived all thefe expreffions con-
cerning Chrift, and thefe proofs from
the oral information of an Apoftle. If
the. authenticity of the Epiftle to the
Hebrews be not yet determined, (which
in this place muft neceffarily be the
cafe), then it is equally poffible that
the author of this epiftle copied from
Clement, as that the latter copied from
the former. .

For the fame reafons I muft judge
in a.fimilar manner of the pafflages
which nearly refemble thofe in our
prefent Gofpels of St. Matthew, St.

ES Mark,

$4 The Authenticity of

Mark, and St. Luke.—In the thirteenth
chapter * he exhorts the Corinthians to
forbearance and brotherly kindnefs -in
thefe words: ‘“ Let us efpecially re-
member the commands of the Lord
Jefus,—for thus he faid, Be merciful,
fo fhall ye find mercy. Forgive, fo
fhall it be forgiven unto you. As you
do, fo fhall it be done unto you. As
you give, fo fhall it be given unto you.
As you judge, fo fhall you be judged ;
as you fhew kindnefs, fo fhall kindnefs
be fhewn unto you. With what mea-
fure you mete, with the fame it fhall
be meafured unto you.” Similar com-
mands of Jefus actually exift in Matt.
vii. 1. and Luke yi. 36—38, But Cle-
ment does not once affirm in this paflage,
that he derived them from any wrvé-
ten information. He, and alfo the Co-
rinthians to whom he wrote, might have
received them orally from the Apoftles.
-—In the fame manner he reminds them”

x Page 20. ¥ Chap. 46. p. 70.
, of

the New Teftament. \

of another precept of Jefus. ‘ Re-
member the words of Jefus, who faid,
Woe to that man; it were better for
~ him, that he had never been born,
than that he fhould offend one of my
ele&. It were better for him that a
millftone fhould be faftened to him,
and that he fhould be drowned in the
fea, than he fhould offend one of my
Aittle ones.” ‘This agrees almoft ver-
batim with the difcourfe of Jefus, in
Matthew xviii. 6. Mark ix. 4%. Luke
xvii. 1, 2.-—But it does not therefore
follow, that the paffages were taken
from thefe fcriptures. Clement might
have known them from oral informa-
tion; or other lives of Jefus might
exift from which he feleGted them; for
St. Luke in his Gofpel, i. 1. aétually
declares, that in his time many fuch
lives of Jefus were read among the
Chriftians. From this caufe Lardner”
alfo is in doubt, whether he could call

% Credibility, vol. ii, p, 31—=33,
EA thefe

56.) dhe Authenticity of

thefe. paffages teftimonies for the hif
torical truth of the books of our New
Teftament. | ;

Whatever befides is ataslly nen
from the epiftle of Clement for the
Authenticity of the New Teftament, is
of infinitely lefs value. Some of thefe
fentences agree with our New Tefta-
ment only in common-place maxims,
or indeed only in a word or two.—“ Let
us come up,” fays Clement’, ‘to the
glorious and venerable rule of our
holy calling.” This, it is pretended, is
a quotation from the paffage, 2 Tim.
i. 9. ‘Who hath called us with an
holy calling.”——‘ Nothing,” fays he in
another place’, ‘is impofiible with
God, but to lye;” which is pretended
to be taken from Heb. vi. 18. where
_fomething fimilar is faid of Gad. We
might in this manner prove that Se-
neca, Plutarch, nay even Socrates and
Plato, had quoted the New Tefta-

6 Chap. Vile Po 33, b Chap. xxvii. p. 42,
ment,

the New Tefiament. = 57

ment.—Others, indeed, have a greater
refemblance in thought and expreffion;
but they are not therefore of necefity
taken from our New Teftament. Cle-—
ment might have learnt them through
perfonal intercourfe with the Apoftles,
or have borrowed them from the books
of the Old Teftament‘’, or from other
Chriftian writings“ which then exifted.

Dr. Mill,

¢ For inftance, in the 30th chap. p. 45, he quotes a
pallage, yet without naming its author.—** For God,”
fays he, ‘* refifteth the proud, but giveth grace to the
humble.”—This fentence is found indeed in James
iv. 6.; but it ftands alfo in Proverbsiii. 34.

4 The author of what is called the fecond epiftle,
is {peaking of the wicked, chap. iv. p.g3. and then
adds —** Concerning thefe the Lord has faid, Though
ye fhould be joined unto me, even in my very bofom,
and keep not my commandments, I would reje& you,
and fay unto you, Depart from me, I know you not,
whence you are, you workers of iniquity.”—This
paffage is evidently fimilar to that in Matt. vii. 23.
Neverthelefs, it is not taken thence, but from an apo-
eryphal book. In the fame manner Clement, when he
guotes the difcourfes or aftions of Chrift, may have
taken them from fome other hiftory that was extant
_ when he wrote. For the other hiftorians of the life

| of

358 The Authenticity of

Dr. Mill, in the Prolegomena to his
edition of the New Teftament, Num.
140, draws the following inference
from this epiftle of Clement:—That
- Clement had read our firft three Gof-

pels, the Acts of the Apoftles, the
Epiftle to the Romans, the two Epiftles
to the Corinthians, the Epiftle to the
Hebrews, the Epiftle of St. James, and
the firft Epiftle of St. Peter. From
fuch conclufions the moft convenient
opportunities are afforded to unbe-
lievers, of bringing into difcredit the
whole body of evidence for the truth
of Chriftianity. I dare not attempt to
prove from this ancient document more
than—that our firft Epifile to the Co-
rinthians is authentic.

In reading this venerable work of
a teacher, who was an intimate friend
of the Apoftle Paul, who was alfo well

of Jefusmight have been equally credible men, as thofe
whofe memoirs are contained in the New Teftament, al-
though they did not write, like the latter, from divine
infpiration.

acquainted

the New Teftament. 59

acquainted with the other Apoftles, and
had undoubtedly a perfect knowledge
of all their doétrines and writings; who
even himfelf prefided, at the time of the _
_Apoftles, as bifhop, over a community
to which St. Paul had written one of
his longeft epiftles, many difficulties
have very forcibly oceurred to me. I
will here point them out; perhaps they
may excite others to examine this im-
portant document with more accuracy.
—Firft: in this fhort epiftle, which oc-
cupies about forty fmall o€tavo pages,
Clement quotes almoft fifty paffages
from the Old Teftament, fometimes
word for word, and fometimes by
name. It was therefore by no means
contrary to the fafhion of thofe days
to quote many fcriptural paflages by
way of proof. Why then does he ap-
peal to the Scriptures of the New Tef-
tament fo feldom verbally, and only in
a fingle infiance by name? ‘They were
all at that time compofed, the Reve-

lation

60. The Authenticity of

lation of St. John perhaps excepted.
For Clement wrote his epiftle after the
death of the Apoftles Paul and Peter’.
—Secondly ; in the xxiv—xxvi. and in
the |. chap. p. 39—42, and p. 74, 75, he
attempts to prove the refurreétion of
the dead, and quotes for that purpofe
many pafiages from the Old Teftament,
all of which in. fact prove nothing.
Whence is it then, that he quotes not
a fingle one among the great number
of far clearer paffuges in. the New
Tefiament, particularly in the firft
Epifile. of St. Paul to the Corin-
thians ? What could: be more decifive
to the Corinthians, to whom he wrote,
than the determination of the Apoftle,
who had wrought fo many miracles
among them, and of whofe divine in-
tivation they had no doubt?

. Having frequently made thefe dif-
ficulties ‘the fubjeét of my confidera-
tion, it appears to me that much may

e Chap. v. p. 9, ro.
be

the New Tefiament. .— = 64

be faid to leffen, if not entirely to re- —
move, their force:—As to the firft, I

an{wer, That Clement very rarely makes _
his quotations from the Old Tefta-
ment by name; but almoft conftantly —
only according to their contents. Nor

was it very cuftomary for the ancient
writers to quote by mame, as may
be. feen for inftance in the Epiftle
to the: Hebrews, in which the au-
thor quotes generally according to
the contents only, or with an inde-
terminate phrate, “one in a certain
place teftified’.” Moreover, Clement.
prefumed that the contents of the New
Teftament were already known to the
Chriftians at Corinth: » But this ‘he
could not -prefume in’ refpeét /of the -
Old Teftament, which was generally un-
known to the heathen converts.—With
regard to'the fecond difficulty, it ap-
pears to me that the immediate objett
of Clement was not fo much to prove |

£ Chap. i. ii,
the

62 The Authenticity of

the truth of this do€trine of Chrif-
tianity, as to fhew its harmony with
the doétrine of the Old Teftament,
For this reafon he quotes, however ill-
applied, paffages of the Old Teftament
exclufively, and in fuch profufion. The
doétrine itfelf he prefuppofes to be
true, and to be believed. The be:
ginning of the 47th chap.—“ Receive
the Epiftle of the Holy Paul; what has
he there written to you?” rendered all
further quotations of particular paf-—
fages of this epiftle unneceflary.

3. Hermas.

WE have an ancient writing under
the title of Paftor®, or Shepherd, which
bears the name of Hermas, whom St.
Paul, Romans xvi. 14. enumerates
among thofe to whom he particularly
fends falutation. It contains, as we
have it at prefent, three books. In
the firft, which has the title Vifones,

& It ftands in Cotelerius, vol. i. p. 75-126.
are

the NewTecflament. _ 63

are four vifions. The Church of God |
appears to him four times, in the form
of an old woman, gives him various
doctrines, (which are very common-
place, and not always juft) and parti-.
cularly informs him, that the Chriftians
had much tribulation to expe, but
that they might overcome it by patience
and prayer.—After fome time appears
a venerable man, in the habit of a
fhepherd, and dictates to him as he
writes, twelve commands, which con-
tain a kindof catechetical inftruction in
morality, very incomplete, and in part
bad and unchriftian. Thefe are the
contents of the fecond book, which is
therefore called AZandata.—Again, this
venerable man diétates to him ‘certain
types, comparifons, and narratives, in
which are veiled certain moral, truths,
and the future fortunes of the church.
Thefe compofe the third book, which
on this account is entitled, Simélitu-
dines.—The work was written origi-

| | ‘ mally

64 The Authenticity of

nally in Greek. But we have now
only an ancient Latin verfion*, except
a few fragments preferved in the Greek
fathers, and which may be feen in

Cotelerius. |
If we were to form our judgment of
‘the author from the book itfelf, we
fhould fuppofe it to have been written
by one who was a Jew by birth, and
who lived in the firft century. The
rigid adherence to fafts, and high. idea
of their meritorioufnefs'; the figura-
tive and allegorical kind of reprefen-
tation“; the quoting of the book Heldam
ef Modal'; and the Hebrew name
given

h Whoever defires to be further informed concerning
the opinions of learned men on thefe writings of the
apoftolical period, may confult the firft vol. of Le
- Nourry Apparatus ad bibliothecam maximam’ Patrum
et antiquorum Scriptorum eccles. Lugduni edit. im
which every thing that belongs to the fubjeé& is treated
with great accuracy and copioufnefs. The account of
the Paftor is to be found, p. 47—70.

i See Similitud. V.

K See the Vifiones and the Similitudines.

I Vifio. ii. §. 3. p. 77.—** The Lord is nigh to them

that

the New Teftament. 65

given” to the angel, or, as others ex-
sais it, to the frightful beaft which
appeared to him; thefe evidently be-
tray a writer, who, was educated in the
Jewith mode of thinking.—And that it
was compofed in the firft century, is
probable from the firft book. In this
the old woman foretells the fortunes’
of the church, and indeed in a very:
myfterious manner. [But all her pro-
phecies are fo general and indetermi-
nate, that nothing more can be learnt
from them than that, “the Chriftians
were to be greatly perfecuted.” Now
had the author lived later, in the fe-

that turn unto him, at it is written inthe book of Hel-
dam and Modal,-.who prophefied to the people in the
wildernefs.”” Thefe are the words of the author him-
felf. The hiftory to which he alludes, is found in
Numb. xi. 26,27.. But the Hebrew names of thef
prophets are Eldad and Medad. In the Synopf. Scrip-
ture §. which is known under the name of Atha-
nafius, there is a book Heldam and Modal mentioned
among the apocryphal writings of the Old Teftament.

m The name in the work itfelf is Hegrin, PVyrT-
See Vifio, iv. §. 2. p. 83. & Not. ‘Oxonient- in loc.

F _ cond,

66 The Authenticity of

cond, or even third century for in-
ftance, he would certainly have made
his prophetefs to give a more de-
terminate and complete defcription
of thofe perfecutions; of the tyrants
who fhould command them; of the ~
cruelties, and modes of torment and
death which fhould hereafter be made
ufe of; and fubjeéts of the like nature.
—The author, it may be added, who in
the whole compofition appears to have
been a good, though an ill-informed
man, calls himfelf Hermas, and affures
his reader, that he wrote it at Rome’,
and at the time when Clement was
Bifhop of that church®. We perceive,
therefore, even without external evi-
dence, that it is extremely probable
that this work came from the apofto-
lical Hermas. And this is corroborated

n Vifio. i. §. 1. pa7s.
© For in Vifio. ii. §. 4. p. 78. he receives a com-
mand to write two copies of this prophecy, and to
fend one of them to Clement, who would tranfmit it
to the foreign’ cities.
*~ by

the New Teftament, 67

by the exprefs teftimonies of Ireneus,
Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian,
Origen, Eufebius, Athanafius, and
Jerom, who not only inform us, that
the apoftolical Hermas did really leave
us fucha book, but they alfo quote from
it many and long paflages, and thefe ex-
actly agreeing with our prefent copies’.
We cannot therefore refufe to attri-
bute this book to the above-mentioned
writer, without bringing into fulpicion
the whole of ecclefiaftical hiftory.
Eufebius gives us the following in-
formation concerning the Paftor, which
many in his time ‘uppofed. to have
been written by the apoftolical Hermas;
‘¢ That fome believed it to bea very ufe-
ful book, as an introduttion to religion,
and that it was therefore read publicly
in the churches*.” This opinion agrees
very

? Thefe paflages are collected together in Cotelerivs,
vol. i. p. 68-72. where they may be {een all at one
view. | 4

a “to” ETEpwy ovmynatoraror, O65 AISa dsb Sole

F2 Kirworews

68 | The Authenticity of

very well with the work which we have
at prefent. Its ftyle is entirely adapted
to the fenfes. The Similitudives in
which the writer clothes his inftruCtion,
are nothing more than a colleétion of
fimilies, taken from common objects,
for inftance, from a vine, a green tree,
or a flock. This is the cafe alfo with .-
the Mandata and Vifiones. And thus
we in modern times compofe books of
inftruction for children; but indeed
with this difference, that it is written
in a rough and unpolithed ftyle. The
whole plan of the book is, if I may
ufe the expreflion, dramatic; as if
adapted to children and _ beginners.
The author does not teach, but relates.
The firft book is the narrative of his
conferences with a venerable matron;
and the other two contain the relation
of his converfation with a fhepherd.

Xtrwrews tioayuyiuns, xexprras Oey ndn xas ev exxdy-
Theessy baer avr Dednocievyscvove Hist. Eccl. Lib. ITT.
Cap. ill, Pp» GO»

Thefe-

the New Teftament. 69

Thefe converfations are throughout
‘dramatic. A fplendid tower is ereéted
by a variety of artifts, and compofed
of ftones of every {pecies. Hermas
walks into the country; here his in-
ftruétor points out now a vine, now
a tree juft fhooting forth its leaves;
and, at every profpeét, takes. occa-
fion to inftruét him.—The writer of.
this book is, fometimes reprefented
as an enthufiaft who fancied that he
faw a variety of vifions, and heard
revelations, We might with equal
juftice, on account of the fairy tales in
her Magazine for children, call Beau-
mont a fanatic.

This form in which Hermas has
compofed his book, did not certainly —
afford him any opportunity to quote
paflages from the Bible, as proofs in
his fyftem of inftruétion. Many fimi-—
lar thoughts and expreffions have been
produced, of which Lardner ‘ has col-

‘+ Credibility, vol. ii. p. 52-—65.
FS leéted

76 The Authenticity of

leGied. & great number. But although
this work is nearly as large as all
the other writings of the apoftolical —
fathers taken together, yet we cannot
diféover in it any where a fingle
feriptural book cited expeetslys and by
name.

4. Ignatius.

IGNATIUS was Bifhop of Antioch;
at the command of the Emperour
Trajan, beécaufe he could not be pre+
vailed on to renounce Chriftianity, he
was conducted to Rome in the year of
Chrift, 106, in order to fight with wild
beafts exhibited at the public games;

he rentained conftant, ‘and was torn to
" pieces “by lions in. the amphitheatre.
His’ feven genuine épiftles * ftand’ in
Cotdletius, ‘vol iii py 7149, and in
ay S' Oe neatly © after the sail

i} a :

me Bae - Original bwbith it. written ih the
Greek language, there is extant alfo an ancient Latin
verfion, which is found in Cotelerius, p. 324—331.
5 tles

af
if

the New Teftament. | 7\

tles of Clement, p. 1—73. Thefe are »
tolerably well purified‘ from madern —
interpolations. I fay tolerably well, —
for even the {maller edition appears in
certain places, to be ftill fufpicious.—
_ In all thefe epiftles, only a_fingle book
of the New Teftament is exprefsly
named by him, which is St. Paul’s
Epifile to the Ephefians. Among the
advantages belonging to the Ephefians,
which Ignatius notices in his epiftle to
this community", he diftinguifhes this
in particular, that they had received
the knowledge of the myftery of the holy
Paul.“ Youare,” fays he, “ fellow-
partners in the myftery of the holy
Paul—who in his whole Epiftle, makes
honourable mention of you, as true

t See Jacobi Ufferii differtationes de Ignatii Epif-
_tolis, in Cotelerius, vol. ii. p.-199. feq. but particu-
larly, Joamnis Pearfonii Vindicie Ignatiane, ibid.
p- 25%. fq, and Joan. Clerici, diff. de Ignatii Epiftolis ;
ibid, p. 501. {q. and Prof. Schroeckh’s Ecclefiaftical

- ARG ;
Hiitory, vol, ii. p. 337, of the Original. -
% §. xii, P49. |
F 4 members

72 The Authenticity of

members of Jefus Chrift”.” St. Paul
naines the important doétrine to the
publication of which he was peculiarly
called, that is, the doétrine of the equal
participation of the grace of God
through Jefus by the Heathens and
Jews, the Myftery, the heretofore un-
known doétrine, pusneiov*. On this
account Ignatius calls the Ephefians
Fellow-partners in the myftery of Paul,
(TlavAcv cuzpuses) and reminds them of
the praifes which the Apoftle had fre-
quently beftowed on them in his Epif-
tle; that he might thereby excite in
them a noble ambition.—-We have
therefore in this paflage an eaprefs
evidence for the Epifile of St. Paul to
the Ephefans. For the fuppofition of
the author of the “ Letter concerning

© Tlavaey cuppvras rou ayiaopevouy—ds ty mac

emisoan pynjovves vuov ev Xeisy Incov. That pveno-

vevery Sometimes means 10 make honourable mention of one

is well known; fhould a proof of this be required, I

refer the reader'to Lardner, Credibility, vol. ii. p- 70.
* Rom. xvi. 25,26. Ephef. iii, z—9.

the

the New Teftament. 73

the perfons to whom St. Paul wrote
what is called the Epiftle to the Ephe-
fians’,” that inftead of pompoveve mutt
-be read fAunwrovevw, is a conjecture which
not only contradiéts (as Lardner has
obferved on the cited paflage) all ma-
nufcripts, but deftroys alfo the whole
connection of the twelfth fection.

In the epiftle to the Philadelphians *,
he gives them as it were an account of
the fources from which he had drawn
his faith. ‘I flee to the Gofpel, as to
the body of Chrift; and to the Apof-
tles, as to the prefbytery of the church.
Let us alfo refpeét the Prophets; for
they likewife publifhed to men, that
they fhould ground their hope on the —
Gofpel and on Jefus, and expeé his
coming*.” Every one will acknowledge.

that

_ ¥ See Benfon’s Hiftory of the firft planting of the
Chriftian religion. : ,

z §. v. p. 48, 49.

* ThpocQuyay ty suayyeAw, ws capes Ingovs nas To1g
amosoros, we mpecPureprw rng exxAnoiase Kas Tous
BpoOnras de amyamwptr, Oia Fo nap avTovs sg To

evayYyEAsoy

74 The Authenticity of

that by ‘ the Prophets,’ Ignatius
means the writmgs of the Prophets-of
the Old Teftament. Without doubt
then he underftands by ‘ the Gofpel,’
the writings of the Evangelifis; and by
‘ the Apoftles,’ the writings of the
Apoftles.—- Again, when he. warns
them ° againft a love. of difputation,
and. exhorts them to aétin all things
according to the doétrine of Chrift, he
reprefents to them his own example.
“ Hearing fome perfons declare,” faid

| he,

AVOOYYEAtoy KaTHYyYErAuEVas XoLs tig auToy edarilerys Mos
avrov avzevery.—Commentators have given a variety
ef opinions to account for Ignatius calling the Gofpel
ours Incov. ‘This appears to me to be the moft na-
tural caufe, becaufe it promulgates the accomplifh-
ment of the promifes of the Old Teftament. Thefe
ane generally called the /badow, and Chrift the fub-
fiance, or body. Or this may’ be the reafon, as Le
Clerc has. remarked on the paffage, that he put as
much confidence in the contents of the Gofpel, as if
Jefus were ftill alive, and affured him of its truth.—
The laft words are obfcure in the way they are ufually'
rendered, The tranflation given above appears to me
to convey the true fenfe of the-author.

Bik 7 §. Vili. p. 51, 52.

the New Tefiament. | 78.

he, “I believe nothing but what I find
in the ancients, (or, according to ano-
ther reading, the archives) viz. in_ the
Gofpel, I anfwered, but it is there
written. And thereby I browght them
.to acknowledge that they would be-

ge 2?

lieve *.’++ From thefe paffages thus

¢ I will fubjoin this difficult paffage, on which the
_ commentators are fo much at variance, in order that
the reader may, without further trouble, examine the

translation which I have givem above. Eves yrovee

Tivwv AsyovTwy OTe say pan ey Tobe apxesosc, (or, aCe
cording to a different reading, apresos) Evpwr ev ty
svayY:AKas B mistowe Kate Keyovtos pov autor, Ste
yeypanras, amrenpiOncay wots ore rpoxerrat. Ignatius,
in the preceding fixth fe€tion, had exhorted the Phila-
delphians to beware of thofe, who produced every kind
of Jewith tenet, but were abfolutely filent concerning.
Jefus Chrift. I tranflate therefore the laft words ie
mpoerraut, Itaque propofitum eff, namely, credere ; and.
underftand the paffage in this manner, that in their
difputations they fhould truft exclufively: to the decifions
of the Gofpel, and.endeavour. to convince their oppo-
nents therefrom with all gentlenefs.—A fimilar paf-
fave is found in Epi&etus, in Arriani differtation.
Epiét.) Lib. iv. capiig. edit. Joan. Uptoni, tom. i.
p- 599- He had taught in the: préceding part, ‘ that
we fhould conftantly live agreeably to nature,” and adds,
Touro yap tris 6 mer mpoxeiTar Tw nary nas oyacbu.
much

+»

@

76 The Authenticity of

much is clear, that in the time of Ig-
natius there exifted certain writings of
the Evangelifts and Apoftles, formed
into a colleciion.. Their. nature and
number however is uncertain, fince he
has given us no catalogue of them.

In thefe epiftles are alfo many fenti-
ments and expreflions, which appear to
have been borrowed from the Scriptures
of our New Teftament.—In the epifile
to the community at Smyrna’, Igna-
tius fays of Jefus, “That he was ac-
cording to. the flefh, truly of the fa-
mily of David, and a fon of God, ac-
cording to the will and power of God.”
St. Paul {peaks of him almoft in the
fame manner, Rom. i. 3, 4.—To the
Ephefians * he writes, “The crofs of
Chrift is a {tumbling block unto un-
believers; but to us falvation and eter-
nal life. Where is now the wife, and the
profound inquirer? Where is the boaft-
ing of them that are called learned?”

# Gi. p. a. © §. xviii. p. 32.
ting:

the New Tefiament. 77

St. Paul makes the fame remark on the
évangelical doétrine, 1 Cor. i. 18-31.
-——Ignatius exhorts the Magnefians in al-
moft the very words of St. Paul, 1 Cor.
v. 7. 8.“ Caft away the évil leaven,
which is become old and four; and be.
transformed into a new mafs, which is
Chrift §"—In. the epiftle to Polycarp®,
he recommends that he fhould exhort
the men ‘‘ to love their wives, even as
Chrift loves his church.” This excel-
lent command is found in Eph. v. 25.
—The - many other paflages in which
the New Teftament is faid to have.
been quoted", have either only a very
diftant. fimilitude’, or are evidently
different*.

Ignatius may therefore be produced -
as a clear evidence for the Epijile of

F §, X. Pp. 42.

& §.v. p. 16.

h See Lardner’s Credibility of the G.H. vol. ii.
p> 70-85.

i As for example, in Lardner; Numb. 2, 3, 4 59 79

9» 139 175 18, 275 375 36, 38,42.
k See Lardner, Numb; 43.

St.

78 The Authenticity of

St. Paul to the Ephefians, and that in
his time exifted a colledion of evange-
lical and apoftolical writings ;—we may _
alfo with probability conclude from his
Epifile, that the Epifile to the Romans,
and the firft Epiftle to the Corinthians,
were at that period already written.

5. Polycarp.

POLY CARP was an immediate dif-
ciple of St. John the Apoftle, by whom
he was alfo appointed to the bifhoprick
of Smyrna’. According to the informa-
tion of Irenzus™, he left behind him
various writings. But none of them are
come down to us except his epiftle to
the Philippians; and even this is no
longer entire in the Greek original *.

In

I Sce Irenzeus, Lib. iii. cap. 3. §..4. Eufebius,
Lib, iii. cap, 36. p..130. and Hieronymus De vir.
illuftr. cap. 13.

m In Eufebius, Lib. v. cap. 20.

® It ftands in Cotelerius, vol. ii..p. 186-289; and
the old Latin verfions which contains the entire epiftle,

Pp 190

the New Teftament. 7)

In this work he. teftifies exprefsly,
that St. Paul had written an Epifile to
the Philippians, in which he ftrength-
ened their faith, hope, and love ‘to-
wards God, Chrift and their neighbour.
“ Paul,” fayshe*, “not only preached
in perfon to you the true do€tine, but
alfo when abfent wrote epiftles to you,
by the ftudy of which you will be able
‘to edify yourfelves in the _— which
has been delivered to you.” And im
another place” he expreffes his afto-
nifhment at the covetoufnefs of Valens,
one of their prefbyters. “But,” he adds,
“T have never obferved, nor ever
heard the fame of you, among whom
Paul preached. On the contrary, he

p- 190—-191. Both may be feen in the Edit. of Frey,
p- 143—1 61.—The teftimonies of the above-mentionett
authors, and the paflages cited by them, place the aus
thenticity of this epiftle beyond all doubt.—ff the
fragments, which are called Re/ponfiones, (in Coteler.
1. cit. p. 205. 6. and in Frey, p. 162—164) were the
genuine production of Polycarp, they might be con-
fidered as an evident teftimony for the authenticity of
the four Gofpels.
° §. iii, p. 146. 47. P §. ix. pe 150+
makes

80 The Authenticity of

makes mention of you in the beginning
of his Epifile, and boafts of you in all
communities *.”—He cites alfo €x-
prefsly, although not by name, a _paf-
fage from S¢. Paul's firft Epifile to
the Corinthians, vi. 2. An nefcimus
quia fanéti mundum judicabunt? /icut
Paulus docet'.—In like manner he
appeals to the command which ftands
in the Holy Scriptures, “ Be ye angry
in fuch a manner that ye do not fin;
and let not the fun go down upon your
wrath *.”. Confido, vos bene exerci-
tatos effe in Sacris litteris.— — Ut his
feripturis digéium eft, Irafcimini et
nolite peccare ; et fol non occidat fuper

q See Philipp. i. 3—5. In the former of thefe two
paflages the Plural number ftands in the Greek, o¢—
syparper earssoras. But it is by no means uncommon
to ufe this word in the plural number, although only
a fingle epiftle is meant. Comp. Cotelerii not. in loc.—
Lardner fuppofes that Polycarp in this place intended
not only the Epiftle to the Philippians, but alfo both
the Epiftles of St. Paul to the Theffalonians. Credi-
bility, vol. ii. p. 91. 2.

* §, xi. p. 159. $ §, xii. p. 159.
tracundiam

the New Teftament. ~ 81
dracundiam veftram. Now’ fince ‘the
paffage, as here quoted, does not exift
in any part of the Old Teftament, but
is found exclufively in the Epiftle of
St. Paul to the Ephefians, iv. 26, this
fentence may therefore be ccnfidered
as an evidence, that the pifile to the
Ephefians was already efteemed at that
time as a divine Scripture.

~ This epiftlé of Polycarp is atin
out moral, and contains a variety of
ethical maxims, delivered almoft in the
fame words which we find in the Scrip-
tires of our New Teftament.—“ Re-
member” fays he‘, “ what the Lord
taught, Judge nde that ye be not
judged; forgive, and ye fhall be for-
given ; be merciful, that ye may ob-
tain mercy; with the fame meafure
that ye mete, it fhall be meafured to
you again.” Further, “ Bleffed are the
poor, and they that are perfecuted for
righteoufnefs fake, for theirs is, the

© §. ii p. 145, 146.
G kingdem

82 The Authenticity of

kingdom of God.” Paflages of fimi-
Jar import are found i in. St. Matthew,
v. 3. 7. 10. vil. 1,2. St. Luke, vi, 20.

37, 38. —“We muft all fiand before the
judgment feat of Chrift, in order that
every one may give an account. of
himfelf*.” This alfo is found in the
fame words, Rom. xiv. tO. 12.—He
warns them” againft covetoufnefs. with
the very fame arguments and, expref-
fions as are found in 1, Tim. vi, 7. 10.
‘‘ The love of money is the root of. all
evil. . Let us therefore well, confider,
that as we brought nothing into. the
world, fo,can we carry with us nothing
out,”—In, this work of, Polycarp. we
meet befides with many, fentiments in
exactly the. fame drefs in, which they
which has. alfo been remarked i Eu-

febius*%. That I may not, be. too

abd 9 prolix,

. ” * §. vi. p- Iso. dp Ww §. iv. p- 147. ;
* Hift, Eccl. Lib. XV. cap, xiv. p.'162. WoAv-
KOTOR

the New Teftament. 89

prolix, I will mention only the paflages
below ”.—From thefe paffages: alone,
we cannot indeed conclude, that he
has taken them: from the undermen-
tioned books of the New Teftament?:
but when joined with the numerous
and clear evidences which wili be pro-
duced in the following pages, they
greatly corroborate the proof of the -
Authenticity of the New Teftament,

SECT. iil,

Teftimonies from Works of the firft
Century, which are now loft.

_ TO thefe evidences of the apofto-
lical. fathers, we are enabled to. add

| MeepMG By TN dnawbeson Thos Dirswanorous avrov ypaQn
Pegoucvn Bg ‘evga, MEX PNTAb Tick pwapTupiors amo Tg
Tlerpov mporepag emisoAngs

¥y Compare §.i. p. 144. with 2 Pet. 1.°8.—§. ii.
P- 145+ with 1 Pet.-i. 2t.—§.-ii.. latter part, with
3 Pet. iii. 9.--And, §.-v. pe 1498 with a Pets dis 14.’

™ See above, ps 38:

G2 yet

84 - The Authenticity of

yet fome_ others, from the firft century.
The writings themfelves are indeed, to
the great lofs of Chriftianity, no, longer
extant;; but the. following evidences:

from them have been preferveds in aig
by Eufebius..

_Papias, Bifhop of, ey eau was,
tt to Eufebius*, a man of very
moderate underftanding, but who em-
ployed fo much the greater care in
examining into the doétrines and hil-
tory of Jefus and of his Apoftles, from
their immediate acquaintance and dif-
ciples. He had colletted confiderable
information, particularly from Ariftion,
and John the Prefbyter, [whom fome

~\a Hift. Ecclef. IIT. cap. xxxixs p. 135. 38. In
this’ place, Eufebius treats’ amply of the hiftoryiand
writings of Papias. The decifion which he makes in
P+ 1375 CPodpa —— — cLixpos WY TOY yours WS AY EX THY
auTOD Acywr TExpnpawsvor ssoreiy Dawerasr, mult not be
confidered as a contradiétion of the paflage in Lib, ITT,
“capexxxvi. p. 130. For the opinion which is found
(there, Tamas, ——— ane re wavra ory parse

Aciwrarcs xas ng ypane sidnuwr, is the interpolation
of a Scholiaft. See Valefius in loc;

conceived

/
the New Tefiament. ~ — 85

conceived» to. be the author of the
_Apocalypfe | which information he de-
livered to pofterity, under the title,
Aoywv xuesaxov eEnynoss, An Explication.
of the words of the Lord. But of this
work. nothing now remains, except —
the’ extraéis which are preferved in
Eufebius. |
The information, properly belonging ©
to the New Teftament, which was con-
tained, in that book, is given us by
Eufebius’, in the following words:—
““*-Mark, the interpreter of Peter, faith-
‘ fully wrote what the latter had taught.
“He has not indeed placed the dif-
‘courfes and aétions of Chrift in their
‘proper chronological order; for he
‘was neither a hearer of the Lord him-
‘felf, nor one of his immediate fol-
‘lowers; but, as I have already men-
‘tioned, became afterwards acquainted
‘with Peter, who taught according to
‘the wants of his hearers, but without

» Page 137, 138,
G3 ‘any

86 The Authenticity of

‘any view of giving a hiftory of our
‘Lord’s difcourfes. Mark however
* committed no miftake in writing fome
* thingsas they occurred to his memory.
* For he was anxious to omit nothing ~
“which he had heard, and to add
‘ nothing falfe to his account.’ ‘‘ This
is Papias’ information concerning St.
_ Mark. And of St. Matthew he writes,
‘ Matthew wrote his Gofpel in the
* Hebrew language, and every one in-
‘terpreted it as well as he could.’
“The fame Papias makes ufe alfo of
certain evidences from the firft. Epiftle
of St. John, and the firft Epiftle of St.
Peter. He relates likewife another
ftory of a woman, accufed before the
Lord of many crimes; which hiftory is
found in the Gofpel according to the
Hebrews ‘.”—This pafiage depofes an

irrefragable

© Mapuos mey tpnvevtns Tlergou syevopesvocs Sceey euuvne
povevcey, axpiBws eyparler, 8 wevros Taker ta vO Tov
Kero n Asx Oerra, 7 max Oerte* xTs yap nxouce Tov

nUEIOV,

the New Tefament. 87

irrefragable evidence for the Go/pels of
St. Matthew and St. Mark, the firft
Epifile of St. Peter and the firft Epifile
of St. John. But if St. Mathew wroté
his Gofpel in Hebrew, (or as we call
it, Chaldee) which hence appears to’
be manifeft, yet it is equally certain
from other grounds that he c¢mpofed
it likewife in Greek. The Chriftians
in Paleftine ufed the Hebrew original;
added to it many things taken from
other gofpels, genuine and fpurious ;
aiid this is that anciently celebrated

xUgrov, ore mapnncrovOncey avTw® Usepoy de ws eDnys
Tlerpy og Meos Tas wees eMoserTo Tas doaornwAracs
GAN ovywomsp curratw Tov Kuprcnay morovpcevos Aoywy®
wee dudey hpapre Mapuocy sutwe eve yperbas wg
UME Yn movevceD® Evog ryan EMFoKngoeTe mpovoray, TOU pndey
dy nxovce waparvrey n wevtacbar ts ev auToss®

Tate mev ovv isopntas tw Tlamie méps Tov Mapnov*
areps Oe rou Marbatov ravr eipytat Mardatog wer ove
“Efpaids darsutye ta Aoyse coveyponbaro® apunvevos.
S avra a; sduvaro ixasos? xexpnras & avros pocege
rupiais cro tng Iwavvov smperepas emis oAnss meas ns
Tletpou Gproswe® exteDerras de nar aAAny Fropray wee
YUVAtKOS, EMS WoAAAIC BcepT ices SsaBanberons £7 TEV
xupiov, 49 Fo nad” ERpasovg Evayysdsoy mepse nese

G 4 Gofpel

88. The Authenticity of

Gofpel of the Hebrews, or as it is like-
wife named, of the Nazarines*. :
_ In cafe Papias had advanced in his |
book fiill further evidences of a fimilar.
nature, and we have reafon to fuppofe
that. he did fo, Eufebius would have
rendered great fervice to pofterity if
he had extraéted them: Butit is much
to be lamented that he often excerpts
the old writers not fo completely as
fcholars muft defire. In the, Thirty-
fixth Chapter of the Third Book of
his Eccl. Hift. (p. 133,), in which he
continues his account of the Chriftian
teachers in the reign of Trajan, he
fays that many of them left their na-
tive country, and exercifed the office
of Evangelifts, ‘zealoufly announcing
Chrift to thofe who had yet heard
nothing of the preaching of faith, and
delivering to them the fcripture of the

# See Fabricii Cod. apocr. N. T. I. 355,

divine

the New Teftament. 89

divine Gofpels®.. Eufebius, a man of
an integrity univerfally acknowledged,
affures us, that he drew his informa-
tion from the documents of antiquity
which he found in the library at Ce-
farea.. We are therefore certain, that
as early as the beginning of the fecond
century, the four Gofpels, which were
received in EKufebius’s time, i. e. the.
Gofpels. of St. Matthew, St. Mark,
St. Luke and St. John, were univer fally
known among the Chriftians; and not
only efteemed as genuine writings of
the men above-mentioned ; but alfo as
of divine infpiration.

CHAP, ITI,

Witneffes in the Second Century.
IN the fecond century the evidences
for the Scriptures of the New. Tefta-
ment

© Kas yup dn wAtisos tov Tore pobarwr, oPodporepar
PirocoPsas spwrs mpos tov Ossov Aoyor rny suxny
TANTTOAEVObs

90 The Authenticity of

ment are far more numerous, deter-
minate, and ample, becaufe we {till
poffefs more and larger works of the
teachers of this period. I fhall not
therefore fiop to quote the paflages
themfelves, but only name the wit-
neffes, and point out thofe parts of
their writings, where their evidence is
to be found. But I will firft defcribe
the ftate of Chriftianity in the fecond
and third centuries,

SECT. iH

State of Chriftianity in the Second and
Third Centuries.

IN the Eaft, (namely in Paleftine,
Chaldea, and Perfia,) where Chrif-

BANTT OMA, Tv Lwrnproy wporspoy ememAnpovy wapa~
meAsvosrs evottcs VELLOVTES TUS OUTIAG+ SEITE ds atroe
Onprces SeAAOpLEPby Epyov swrsTeAouy avayyrArswr, Tote
ATV MALT AY HYNKOOKG TOU THE Wissas Aoyou xnpuTTEY
rou Xprrov Didorspovnevor, xas Thy Tay Osiwe evayysrrew
wapadreoraag yp anv. |
2 tianity

the New Teftament. 91

tianity received its origin, at that time
_ prevailed a mixture of opinions, for
the moft part falfe, but which bore
the venerable name of Philofophy, and
had been fora long time embraced by
many even at Alexandria, which city,
fince the Ptolomies, was become the
chief feat of learning. - This Oriental
Philofophy (we will admit the honour-
able appellation for the fake of bre-
vity) was diftinguifhed from the Gre-
cian, principally in three points, viz.
in the doétrine of fpirits; the main-
taining of two original-beings; and in
morality.—In the doétrine of {pirits
thefe plilofophers had not only regular
genealogies of {pirits, which they canny
‘Kons; but had alfo invented a par-
ticular fcience, Theurgy, or a col-
le€tion of rules, to call up fpirits and
compel them to fatisfy the defires of
men. Again, in order to folve that
great problem of the underftanding, The
origin of evil, is adopted two equally

eternal

92 The Authenticityof

eternal and powerful original-beings,
one good, the other bad., From the
bad was derived ‘all matter, confe-
quently the bodies of men, which were
therefore, the feat of every fin. And
from this principle flowed the whole of
that gloomy, morofe, melancholy fyftem
of morals. adopted by the philofophers
of the Eaft; which placed true virtue
in the rejeGtion of all the pleafures of
fente, and in the fevere treatment,
mortification, and torture of the body‘

| Thefe >

f See—r.' The information contained in Keno-
lion, Plato, Ariftotle, and Diogenes Laertius Procem.
vitar. philof. §. viii.—z. ‘The fragments: of Zoroafter
in Eufebii Preparat. evangel.—3. The doétrines of
the Bramins.—4. The refutations in St. Paul.—And
5: The doétrines of the Gnoftics and Manicheans.
Compare Mofhemii Inftit, H: E. majores, fec. i. 136.
339. with Differt. de caufis fuppofftarum . librorum
inter Chriftian. fec. i. et ii. vol. i. différt. in H. E.
‘ps 223 feq. But the learned and! ingenious man, who
every where perceived (p/lems, which his philofophical!
head had created, appears abfolutely to err, when he
fuppofes, that in the Faft exifted a peculiar fe&t, which
bad brought al thof tenets into a regular ‘fyftem. It
: is

the New Tejtament. 93

Thefe opinions were likewife not un-
common among the Jews, as may ‘be
colleéted from the refutations of them
in the New Teftament, and from. the
writings of Jofephus.. The Pharifees
laid a great ftrefs on: Theurgy; and
through the exercife of this. vifionary
art, they obtained a great part of their
confequence among the people. The
Effenes in particular nlite the sree
fy{tem.

This: oriental vhifofosphiy infinwated
itfelf by degrees alfo ‘among the. fol- |
lowers’ of the Grecian 4yftems. Of
thefe none had been fo generally re-
ceived as that of Plato, which was in
- moft parts excellent. But it became
gradually much changed and corrupted
not. only through ignorance, mifun-
derftanding, and innovation; but alfo
by being intermixed, particularly by
is more probable that there: exifted a variety of fetts,
which occafionally adopted different doétrines.

Plotinus

P ~
%

94 The Authenticity of

Plotinus of Alexandria*:a Platonift of
the third century, with the oriental
fyftems. ‘Thus arofe the: New-platonic
philofophy ; a mixture. of the platonic,
but very much corrupted, and: of the
oriental philofophy: and this: became
the principal fource from which were
derived the perverfions, mutilations,
and moft abominable corruptions of
- genuine Chriftianity.

For until the fecond tiie the
Chriftians always perfifted.in the found
expofition of: the: New Teftament.
To this period: they continued free, if
we except the joylefs morality of the
Effenes, from the diftra@tions of pfeudo-

€ Plotinus, a difciple of Ammonius Saccas, tra-
velled into Perfia, purpofély to learn the doétrines of
the Indians and Perfians. He was the mafter of the
celebrated philofopher and enemy of Chriftianity,
Porphyry ; who alfo edited his works. Mofheim too
much indulges his wit here alfo, as has been re-
marked and proved by Semler, Walch, and others.
Prof. Meiners has treated this fubjeé&t very amply in
his * Confiderationson the New-Platonic Philofophy.”

Leipfig, 1782, 8v0.
philofophy ;

the New Tefiament. 95.

philofophy; and maintained among ©
themfelves genuine apoftolical, Chrif-
tianity. But fcarcely had fome.of the
{cholars of the heathen world (for in-
ftance Clement of Alexandria) acknow-
ledged Chriftianity, when the pfeudo- -
philofophy of the Eafterns. and: New-
platonifts, broke in like a rapid tor-
rent, and. left. behind univerfal defo-
lation. Until this time the doétrines
of the Chriftian religion had been
preached without exception, and: with
the greateft publicity. to. all who would
hear them, and; as the founder of
Chriftianity expreffed himfelf in his
- charge to the Apoftles*, “ from the houfe
tops.” But, now, in refemblance of the
heathen myfteries, certain ceremonies
and doétrines began to be concealed,
and thus.Chriftianity affumed its myf
teries as well as heathenifm. Befides,
a variety of heathen ceremonies. were
adopted in the divine fervice, and

hk Matthew x.
hence

96 The Authenticity of

hence Chriftianity became gradually
a ceremonial religion. Since Origen
(in the third century) this fyftem of
religion, which commands in a parti-~
cular manner the ftri€teft adherence
to truth, was perverted fo much, that
it was declared a duty of charity to
forge miracles, and in ‘fhort, every
thing elfe, if by thefe means converts
might be made to their religion; nay,
this was carried to fuch a pitch of
fhamelefs effrontery, that thefe infa-
mous forgeries were named, pious de-
ceits, pie fraudes, The zealous fup-
porters of the new-platonic philofophy
intermixed their fyftem, even that part
of it which is called platonic love, with
Chriftianity. Socrates and Plato de-
fended the moft intimate union of men

_ with beautiful boys, in fuch a manner, '
that they made. a diftinétion between
corporeal and {fpiritual love; and af-
ferted, that the wife man feels only the
latter in refpeét to the beauty of the
boy,

the New Teftament. 97

boy, in order to condué him to virtue.
Hence arofe in the third century that
moft infamous cuftom for perfons of
the oppofite fexes, without being united
in the bonds of marriage, to live with
one another in the clofeft intimacy ;
in order, as they pretended, to eftablith
a mere union of fouls for the pur-
pofes of virtue. But the mof inju-
rious effeéts, and the almoft mortal
blow which Chriftianity received from
that pfeudo-philofophy of the eafterns,
and more efpecially of the new-pla-
tonifts, was the utter negleét, mutila-
tion, and fubverfion of morals; toge-
- ther with the myftical mode of inter-
preting the New Teftament. The
fimple and perfpicuous fyftem of mo-
rality which Chriftianity taught, was
too light for thefe pretended philofo-
phers ; it afforded too little matter
for their fancies and fpeculations. It
became therefore neglected, and fince
the third century the whole importance

| H was

98. - The Authenticity of

was made to confift in the theory of
Chriftianity, or rather, of the oriental-
platonic Chriftianity. But the matter
did not reft even here; the religion be-
came burthened with the above men- —
tioned theurgy, and corporeal morti-
fication ; and through the affiftance of
myftical and ridiculous interpretations,
every error and every impurity which
the paffions or caprice of men defired,
were introduced into the New Tefta-
ment. In this manner that eafy, beau-
tiful, immediately and univerfally ac- _
tive, chearful, and philanthropic re- -
ligious-fyftem of the New Teftament,
became during the fecond and more
particularly the third century, a gloomy, —
harfh, mifanthropic fyftem of whims,
fancies, monkery, deceit, and hierar-
chical tyranny.

To thefe dreadful calamities from
within were added alfo from without
inceflant perfecutions, which were of-
ten general, and fometimes extremely

bloody

the New Teftament. 99

bloody’ and cruel. Even the worthy
Trajan, and yet the more excellent:
Marcus Antoninus, tortured and put to
death many of their moft faithful fub-
jects only becaufe they were not ido-
laters, but chofe to live according to
thofe laws of Chriftianity, which even
the heathens themfelves acknowledged
to he irreproachable and exellent’.
But the moft horrible of all thefe per-
fecutions began to rage againft the
Chriftians about the year 249. The
Emperor Decius proceeded fo far as to
attempt to exterminate Chriftianity by
the roots. By his orders the Chriftians
were not only put to death, but were
alfo afflicted with the moft exquifite
torttires. A Chriftian, for inftance,
had his whole body fmeared with honey,
-and then, his hands tied behind his
back, expofed quite naked to the me-
ridian fun, where myriads of infects

i Let the reader confult, for inftance, Plinii Epift.
97. Lib. x,

H 2 affailed

100 The Authenticity of

affailed him, and confumed his body by
infenfible degrees *.

_ Neverthelefs, this religion was con-
tinually extending itfelf in all the parts
of the then known world. In Gaul there
already exifted flourifhing communi-
ties at Lyons and Vienne; in Ger-
many; in Britain; in Africa, and every
where the number of the Chriftians fo.
increafed, that even in the beginning
of the fecond century the heathens
complained that the temples of the
gods were quite deferted; and towards
the end of the third, the court and
army of the heathen Emperours were
filled with perfons of this perfuafion.
—This extenfive propagation of Chrif-
tianity was undoubtedly the confe-
quence of the continually increafing
promulgation of the Scriptures of the
New Teftament. As early as the be-
gimning of the fecond century were

k See Schroeckh’s Ecclefiaftical Hift. IV. 190. of
the original.
made

the New Teflament.

made Latin and Syriac verfions.
_ Learned men, (particularly Clement of
Alexandria, Origen, and his fcholar
Pierius), were anxious to have accurate
tranfcripts of the original ; and opulent
men, (efpecially Pamphilus), caufed at
a great expence many exact copies of
it to be taken and difperfed'.—We will
now. hear the individual w’'tneffes
themfelves.

1. Juftin Martyr.
JUSTIN, furnamed the Martyr, be-—
fore his converfion to the Chriftian
faith, had carefully ftudied the Stoic,
Peripatetic, Pythagorean, and Platonic
fyftems of philofophy ; and muft there-
fore be confidered, on account of his
learning and antiquity, as a witnefs of
the greateft importance™. It. is ne-
ceflary

1 See Prof. Schroeckh’s Ecclefiaftical Hift. Part
-i.—iv. and C. R. Walch, On the ufe of the Holy Scrip-
ture among the ancient Chriftians—Leipzig, 1779, 8vo.
m Concerning the circumftances of his life, principles,

H 3 and

102 The Authenticity of

ceflary to read only his ‘ Addrefs to
the Gentiles,’ (Acyos moos “EAAnvas, pag.
1—3), ‘The Exhortation to the -Gen-
tiles,’ (Aoyos mapasversxos apes EAAnvas, p.
6—36), aud the work ‘On the mie
- God,’ (reps provapysas, p. 56—42), i

order to be convinced of his “tbe
reading in the beft writings of anti-
quity. Thefe works of Juftin prove
inconteftibly that the firft followers of
Chriftianity were not by any means
fuch as its enemies affert, univerfally

and writings, the moft accurate and ample. informa-
tion is to be found in the Preface to the Benediétine
Edit. of his works, Haag, 1742, fol. Befides the
genuine and fpurious works of Juftin, this edition con-
‘tains alfo—Tatian’s Oration againft the Gentiles, p.
. 241—276,—Athenagoras’s Apology for the Chriftians, —
pp» 277-——313-—And, his Treatife on the Refurreétion _
of the Dead, p. 314—336.—The three books of
Theophilus of Antioch to Autolycus, p. 337—400.
—The Satire of Hermas on the Heathen Philofophers,
p- 401—406.—And the fragments of the loft writings
of Juftin, Tatian, and Athenagoras; together with
the Aéts of the Martyrdom of Juftin, p. 585 and. fol.
—His firf Apology is a well written defence of the
Chriftians againft the calumniations of the Gentiles.

8 unlearned

the New Teftament. 103

unlearned and fimple men. Juftin
was mucl: better acquainted with the
works and opinions of Plato, Ariftotle,
and Pythagoras, and with the writings
of Orpheus, Homer, A®fchylus, So-
phocles, and Euripides, than moft of
thofe who are pleafed to affert that
the heathen authors are the only fources
of all wifdom, but the folloxvers of
Jefus univerfally mean and fimple
men. -

Befides the Revelation of St. John",
Juftin has not quoted in any part of
his works from a fingle writer of the

n Dialogus cum Tryphone, cap. lxxxi. page 179.
Kas moe nu avnp Th, @ ovo Iwavvns, fs Tw?

amosonuy Tov Xpirov, ey Asroxaruper yevonevn avrey
Kiri ern Woinvery ev IspovewAnn Tous to auernpw
Xpicw mirsvoavras mpouPntivety nai mera TavTe Thy
xaborimny nat —— away duoblvpadory aue wavrwy
avasaciy yevncecbar xaos xpos SA man from
among us, whofe name was John, and an Apoftle of
Chrift, -has prophefied in his Revelation, that they
who believe in our Chrift, fhall live a thoufand years
in Jerufalem; and after that fhall follow the univerfal
and eternal refurreétion and judgment."

HA | New

104 The Authenticity of

New Teftament by name. But he ap-
peals often and exprefsly to the Gof-
pels, which were compofed by the
Apoftles and their affiftants, as to
thofe books from which the Chriftians
derived their tenets.—In his firft apo-
logy (prefented to the Emperour An-
toninus the Pious) he gives this reafon
for the celebration of the Lord’s Sup-
per among the Chriftians®: “for the
Apoftles in the memoirs which are
named Gofpels, have thus affured us,
that Jefus ordered them to do it;
That he took bread, gave thank’, and

© Apolog I. cap. Ixvi. page 83.—See alfo Dialog.
cum Tryphone Judzo, cap. cili. p.199. Ev org
COMOUINLOVED LETS TWY BMOFOAwY YEYpamTa, wiporeAdwy
(namely caraves) avery (Chrift) xas mesaCuy EXPE
TOU ELWEY BUTWs MpoTKVINTOY [A0ty xb cmoxpiyac bas
avty rov Xpisov, omaye omicw pov catave’ Kuptoy
tov Osoy cov wporxvyncess xb AUTH [LOY AUT PEVTELS—
And in the fame place: Ev rosg amropynuovevrpace &
Ques veo Tw amosokwy aUTOU Xa Tw EXENVOIS Tae
exncrovincarrur cviterax ar, Sts idgws woes bgouBos
MATEYEITO, BUTOU EvXOAEVOU Kas AtyorTOS, MageAdeTW,
és Ouvarov, To Worneroy TaUTOs .

then

the New Teftament. 105

then faid, This doin remembrance of me:
This is my body: That in like manner he
took the cup, and after he had given
thanks, faid, This is my blood.” And in
his advice concerning the behaviour of
the Chriftians at their Sunday meetings,
he mentions even, “‘ that the memoirs
of the Apoftles, or the writings of the
Prophets, are publicly read; and when.
the reader has ended, the prefident of
the community exhorts them to the
Imitation of fuch excellent things?.”
An evident proof, that as early as the
beginning of the fecond century the
Gofpels were not only generally known
among the Chriftians, but were re-
vered, even as the Scriptures of the

p Apologia I. cap. Ixvii. p. 83. Kes rn rov fAsov
Asyouen Nutee, Wavtwy xara Worsts n atygous pe-
dOVYTwMY ETL TO AVTO CuveAevois YHVET Al, HAE TH AGOL@
MNLOVEV ATH THY AMSA, n Te CVYYeauMaATA THY
MewPnTwy avayivwoneras weyers eyywers” site meus
TUpEVOY TOY avayiwwoKoVTOSs & MeoEswS dia Aoyou THY
youlsriay xeek meoMANTW THs TWY KxaAWY TOUTwY [Im
PNTEWS WOT erbe

Old

106 The Authenticity of

Old Teftament, that is, as divine
books. .
The view with which Juftin com-
pofed his works did not allow him to
ufe the Scriptures of the New Tef-
_tament by way of proof. We find,
neverthelefs, where opportunities oc-
cur, a variety of paffages, and thefe
quoted with the addition that they
were to be found in the Chriftian
Scriptures. Thus, in the ‘ Firft Apo-
logy,’ in which he fpeaks of the ex-
cellent laws of Jefus, and the virtuous
aGtions of the Chriftians’, of their
hope of a future refurreétion’, and of
their cuftomary mode of Baptifm and
of Supper of the Lord*,—and like-
wife in the ‘ Dialogue with Trypho’,
when he treats of the prophecies
which Jefus had pronounced ‘, of John

¢ Apolog. I. cap. xv—xvii. p. 52— S40

t Apolog. I. cap. xix. p. 55.

* Apolog. I. cap. Ixi—Ixvil. p. 79—84.

t Dialog. cum Tryph. cap, xxxv. p. 132. cap. Ixxvi.

p- 137+ Cap. CVile p. 201,

~ the

the New Teftament. 107
the Baptift", of the morality which
Jefus taught”, of Mary the mother of
Jefus*, and of the infults offered to
the dying Saviour ’,—many paflages
are quoted from St. Matthew, St. Mark,
St. Luke, and St. John, word for
word. And the whole ‘ Dialogue with
Trypho’ is, in particular, a repetition of
the hiftory of the life of Jefus, ar’ it ap--
pears at prefent in our Gofpels. In
this work Juftin compares the circum-
{tances in the life of Jefus with the
characters. attributed to the Meffiah
in the Old Teftament, and concludes,
- from’ their having been exaétly: ful-
filled in him, that he was the Meffiah
promifed by God.

® Dialog. cum Tryph. cap. xlix. p. 145. cap. lis
P- 147. cap. Ixxxviil. p. 186.
_ W Dialog. cum Tryph. cap. xciii. p. tg0.

* Dialog. cum Tryph. cap. c. p. 196.

Y Dialog. cum Tryph. cap, ci. p. 196.

2. Tatian.

108 The Authenticity of

9. Tatian.

TATIAN, the father of the Encra-
tites, fhews himfelf in his ‘ Oration
again{t the Gentiles”, to have been a
man, who, from his travels, had be-
come intimately acquainted with the
world; and from reading, familiar with
the beft writers and with the hiftory of
the Gentiles. In this Oration he in-
forms the Gentiles how little reafon
they had to boa of their philofo-
phers and of their wifdom; and prefles
- them with very pointed reproofs drawn
from their own writings, laws, actions,
and manners. Ina work of this kind
we can eafily fuppofe, that the author
had no opportunity of quoting the
Scriptures of the New Teftament; and
we therefore find, in two paffages ex-

3 See above, p. 101, note ™—The Preface there
noticed, gives ample information concerning his life,
writings, and opinions,

cepted,

the New Teftament. 109

cepted*, that they are never once
mentioned.—But this witnefs had de-
pofed fo much the more in favour of
‘their authenticity in his other writings,
which are now loft, except a few frag-
ments preferved by different authors.
—I fhall produce him again, at the

- conclufion of this century, amon‘, the
remaining witnefles, whofe teftimonies —
are known to us only through the in-
formation of others.

3. LIreneus.

IRENZUS, Bifhop of Lyons, had not
only lived very near the times of the
Apoftles, but had enjoyed familiar
intercourfe with one of their imme-

® Cap. xili. p. 255. and cap. xix. p. 261. In the
firft pafflage he afferts, that the foul is xa6’ tavrns
CxoTOS, nas ovosy ev avTn Doretvov; (how this is to be
underftood is explained by the editor, in the Preface,
Part. TI. cap. xi. §. iii. p. 49.—51.)—-and then
adds, xas rovro esi apa Fo signuevor’ 4 TxOTIA TO
Qus ov xatarapRaver (John i. 5).—In the other paf-
fage he quotes John i. 3. with thefe words, wavra
Ue aUTOU, Kab Ywers auTOU yeyorsy OVE Ere

diate

;

110 The Authenticity of —

diate difciples and friends”. In his
five books Againft Herefies, he deli-
vers very ample and clear teftimonies |
for the hiftorical truth of the Scrip-
tures of the New ‘Teftament.—He
quotes all the Evangelifts often, and
by name; relates the caufe and defign
of their writings; and declares that
there were only four Gofpels, viz.
thofe of St. Matthew,. St. Mark, St.
Luke, and St. John, which were ac-
counted genuine and divine books‘.
ae In
» In the above-mentioned edition of his Works
by Mafluet, very copious information is given con-
cerning his life, opinions, and writings, in the pre-
fixed Differtationes prev. ad Ireneum.—He left many
works, which are named by Eufebius and Jerom.
But of thefe, if we except a few fragments, nothing is
now remaining befides his Libri quinque adverfus
herefes. Even thefe have not come down to us in the
Greek original, but are extant only in an ancient
Latin verfion.-The authenticity of this work has
been amply proved by C. R. Walch; fee Rofler’s
Ecclefiaftical Fathers, v. 264—270.
¢ The moft particular paflages are, Lib. III, cap. i
p- 174, and cap, ii, p. 190392. That he makes
ufe

the NewTefiament. 114

In oppofition to the Valentinians, he
proves by many paflages from the Gof-
pels of St. Matthew’, St. Mark‘, Se.
Luke’, and St. John’, and alfo from
the Aéts of the Apofiles by St. Luke ®,
that there is but one God the creator
and preferver of all things.—To the
writings of St. Paul he appeals yet
more frequently. He proves his te-
- nets againft the heretics moft commonly
from St. Paul’s Epiftle to the Romans,
the two Epiftles to the Corinthians,
the Epiftles to the Galatians, Ephe-
- fians, Philippians, and Coloffians, the
two Epifiles to the Theffalonians, thofe

ufe of fuch ftrange arguments, from the four winds,
&c. by way of proof, is of no confequence to us ir
the prefent inquiry. It is fufficient, that he ex-
prefsly afferts that in his time 20 other Gofpels,
but the four above-mentioned, were received among
Chriftians.

4 L. cit. cap. ix. p. 184, 185.

¢ L. cit. cap. x. pe 185-88. |

f Ibid.

& L. cit. cap. xi. pe 188—90.

* L. cit. cap. xii, p. 193—98.

112 The Authenticity of

to Timothy, and the Epiftle to Titus.
He afferts in many places that thefe
twelve Epifiles were the genuine and
divine works of St. Paul'; makes nume-
rous and fometimes long extracts from
them, evidently proving to every reader,
that they are the very fame which we at
this time poffefs in the New Teftament*.
In like manner he teftifies alfo the
authenticity of the firft Epifile of —
St. Peter’; the firft and fecond Epif-
tles of St. John™; and the Revela-
tion of the fame Apofile’.
e

i For, in his quotations he makes ufe of the fol-
lowing phrafes:—‘ Paul has this in his Epiftle to the
Romans,’ Lib, III. cap. xvi. p. 205.—* Paul fhews
this in his firft(—or—fecond Epiftle to the Corinthians,”
Lib. III. cap. vii. p. 182. Lib. IV..cap. xxvii. p. 264.
He ufes thefe or fimilar forms of quotation for every
one of the above mentioned epiftles,

k Lardner has collefted proofs thereof in his * Cre-
dibility of the G. H.” vol. ii. p. 157—169.

1 He quotes this epiftle alfo, with the fame intro-
duétory phrafe--‘ Peter fays in his epiftle.’—Lib. IV.
Cap. ix. p. 238.

m See Lib. ITI. cap. xvi, p. 206, and ibid. p. 207.

® See particularly, Lib, V. cap. xxvi.—finem libri,

P- 323

the New Teftament. 113

He afferts that thefe writings were
divine, and the fure foundation of the
Chriftian faith’: What his opinion of
the other books of the New Tefta-
ment was, we cannot, from his filence,
determine. He appears to have con-
fideréd the Epiftlé to the Hebrews as
neither the work of St. Paul, ne. a
divine book’.—This is a proof, that
the firft Chriftians were not fo cre-
dulous as modétn infidels réepréfeii€
them. Had they received all at ran-
dom, without examination, then cer-
tainly they would not have rejected fo
univerfally the apocryphal writings, and
hefitated to acknowledge the authen-
ticity of fome of thé books of the
New Teftament.
pi 324337, where he proves’ the’ Deftruétion of thé
Romiati Monarchy, the Wickednefsiof Aniti¢hrift; and
thé thillentiiary kingdoth about‘ td take place before che”
unliverfal judgment, from the’ Revelation of St. John.

o See Lib. TIT. capi i. Be 174. Lib. II. cap:
xRVlii. ps 156. ,

P See Lardiiet’s’ Credibility of the G. H. vol: it.
pi 164—166,
| I . hyedin

114 The Authenticity of

In his time colleétions* of the evan-
gelical and apoftolical writings were
already in the hands of many Chrif-
tians. They were diligently ftudied;
and in order that thofe who were not
opulent might not be deceived by any
corrupted copies, he advifed them to
apply to the teachers of the church.—
* All the divine fcriptures,” fays he‘,
** both prophecies and gofpels are open
and clear, and may be confulted by all.”
——And in another place*, “ That man
will eafily convince himfelf of this,

@ See Lib. I, cap. iii. p. 17. and Lardner, 1, cit.
Pp: 170,171.

* Lib. II. cap. xxvii. p. 155.
_ 8 Lib. IV. cap. xxxii. p. 270. From the firk
view it would appear to follow from this paffage, that
the copies of the facred books were at that time exclu-
fively in the hands of the teachers. In fact it afferts
only thus much, that they poffeffed the copies mof? te
be depended on; for the paflage referred to in the note
immediately preceding, together with many other rea-
fons, will not permit us to doubt, that the generality
of Chriftians alfo, poffefled them in abundance. See
Walch On the Ufe of the Holy Scriptures.

(viz.

the New Tefiament. . 115

(viz. that the Old and New Tefta-
ments came from one and the fame
God) who diligently ftudies the divine
fcriptures which are in the poffeffion
of the prefbyters of the church.” _
Befides the evangelical and apof-
tolical works above mentioned, Ire-
neus acknowledges no other to be
divine. He appeals indeed often, and
with high panegyric, to the writings of
Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Papias,
Hermas, and Juftin Martyr, but he
never betrays any fuch veneration for
them, as he fhews for the writings of
the Evangelifts and Apoftles*. |
Here then we have an extraordina-
rily important evidence for the hifto-
rical truth of the greateft part of the
books of the New Teftament :—it is
the evidence of a man who lived fo
near the times of the Apoftles, who

t See Lardner, Credibility, vol. ii. p. 173-178 5
who has examined with much folidity the pailages i in
which thefe writings are quoted.

12 had

116 The Authenticity of

had enjoyed an intimate intercourfe
with one of their immediate difciples;
and was therefore as capable of in-
vettigating accurately the truth of thofe
writings, as we are of proving the hif-
torical truth of a work attributed to
- Grotius or Selden:—it is the evi-
dence of a man who was well read in all.
the works refpeéting Chriftianity, both,
of the orthodox and heretics; who
himfelf doubted of the truth of fome
books of the New Teftament, and
confequently muft be confidered in
this point as totally exempt from cre-
dulity.—This. witnefs, thus qualified,
appeals in the face of heretics to thofe
writings, as. to: works which defcended
wncontefizbly from the Apoftles and
Evangelifis. We fhould, undoubt-
edly, without hefitation pronounce
every, other book, refting only on a
fingle evidence of fuch weight, to be
genuine. Why then fhould not the
teftimony of this witnefs. have. its, full

force

the New Ti vflament. 3 oe

force on the Scriptures of the New
Teftament?

4, Athenagoras.

ATHENAGORAS, a philofopher
_and a native of Athens, is the moft ©
polifhed and elegant author of Chrif-
tian antiquity; and in refpe& of ‘yle,
excels even Origen. His two works,
the Apology or Petition for the Chrif-
tians, (mpecbea eps Xpissavev), and a
Treatife on the Refurreétion of the
Dead, (mspi avasacews tww vexpov), are
written in very pure Greek, and with
much wit and eloquence.—In the Apo-
logy, which he prefented to the Em-
_perour Marcus Antoninus‘, he de-
fended the Chriftians from the three
crimes with which they were falfely
accufed, viz. atheifm, inceft, and an-

_ & This is proved, im oppofition to Bayle, in thé
Preface to the above-mentioned {page 1or. note m.)
edition of the works of Juftin, Tatian, Athenagoras,
and Theophilus of Antioch, p.cxiii,

13 thropophagy.

118 The Authenticity of

thropophagy. He fhews, that it is
evidently abfurd to accufe of atheifm,
thofe who reftore to the Divinity the
honours and adoration of which he
had been robbed by idols; or of in-
ceft thofe who affert that even to look
on a woman to luft after her is for-
nication: or of anthropophagy. thofe
who never frequent the gladiatorial
fhews, who declare that the ufe of
medicines tending to procure abor-
tion is homicide, and that the ex-
pofing of children is infanticide. The
whole book cannot be read but with
pleafure. Every part clearly evinces
that the author had accurately ftudied
the beft works of the Grecians, and
was mafter of the ftyle and courtly |
language proper in addrefies to the
great.—He compofed the treatife On
the Refurreétion of the Dead, with a
view to defend the truth of the Chrif-
tian do€trine of the refurreétion of the |
body, againft the heathen philofophers.

He

the New Teflament. 119

He proves, that fuch a refurrettion is
by no means impoffible, and {fo little
improbable, that even the mere con-
fideration of the nature of man, and
of the juftice of God," mutt lead us to
acknowledge it.

This view which Athenagoras had
propofed to himfelf in his writings,
did not allow him to cite paflages
from the facred fcriptures. “On this’
account we difcover in them (if we
except a few paflages, in which he
exprefies his propofitions in the fame
words as we find in the books of
the New Teftament”), only me fingle
clear teftimony, and this indeed for
the authenticity of the firfi Epifile
of St. Paul to the Corinthians. - Since
the paffage is too long, I will only
extra&t the parts which my prefent
sek age git tos In the treatife On

w They are colleé&ted by Lardner, Credibility gf the
G. H. vol. ii. ps 182—186.

I 4& he

120 The Authenticity of
the Refurre€tion of the Dead*, he
avails himfelf of the proof taken from
the fortunes of men in general, and
particularly of the virtuous, in this
life. -‘ The juftice of God,’ he infers,
‘ rendering it neceflary to reward men
as men, that is, as beings which con-
fift not only of a foul, butalfo of a
body, accurately according to their ac-
tions ; and this reward rarely occurring
in the prefent life; it is therefore ma-
nifeft that, according to the afertion
of the Apofile, “ this corruptible and
earthly mutt put on incorruption, ——
that every one may receiye jufily ac:
cording to what he has done in the
body, whether it be good or bad’.”
! . And,

x Cap. xviii—finem libri, p. 330—335-

¥ EudyAovy ——-——— Sts Oss xara Tov wMoFOAvL, To
Pbagror Touro xo Oacusdasoy evducecbas aplacarar
yaa — —Exasos HOLIONT At dince1ws, a Osa Tov TWUATOS
empater, ete ayaba, sire naxae Cap. xvill. p. 331.
The fimilitude of this paffage to St. Paul’s affertions,
1 Cor. xv. 53. 2 Cor. v. 10, is very remarkable:

eT

the New Tefiament. ~ 191.

And, in chap. xix. p. 332, he had
evidently the paflage of St. Paul,
1 Cor. xv. 82, in his mind: ‘ If no
future judgment be held on the a€tions
of men, men are nothing better than
beafts. Nay, they are more miferable
than other animals who ftruggle with
their paffions, and ftrive after righte-
—oufnefs, and the fear of God, or other
virtues. If there be no judgment, then
the wild, beftial life is the beft; then
virtue is folly, and the fear of punifh-
ment ridiculous; then the enjoyment
“of every pleafure is the higheft good,
and that principle fo pleafant to the
' yotanes of luxury and luft, Let us eat
and drink for to-morrow we die, the
firft rule of life.—Since he here ap-
peals exprefsly to an Apoftle, who had
promulgated the dotrine of the re-
furrettion of the body, vet) without

ors yxe 70 DBaproy route svdvoccbos apagarary—ve
HOUITRT Hb Exerc TH Oba, TOV THOT O59 %pog C7 emoakers
esTe cryabov, ETE KAKOVe

mentioning

122 The Authenticity of

mentioning either his. name or his
writings; and adopts in his proof the
fame fentiments which we ftill find in
the writings of that Apoftle: we thall
not certainly prefume too far, if we
thence conclude—that at the time of
Athenagoras, the two Epijiles of St.
Paul to the Corinthians were gene-
rally known among the Chriftians,
and confidered as the fource of thetr
faith.

5. Theophilus of Antioch.

THEOPHILUS, Bifhop of An-
tioch*, confidering the objeét which he
had in view, could only mention the
facred fcriptures occafionally. In his
‘Three Books to Autolycus,’ he dif-
putes with a heathen, whom he wifhed
to prepare for a nearer examination
of the Chriftian religion, by firft re-
futing the accufations which had been

% For an account of this writer, fee the Preface to
the above mentioned Edition, p. cxx.

thrown

the New Teftament. 193

thrown out, that the tenets of the
Chriftians were abfurd, and their con-
du& deteftable for inceft and anthro-
pophagy. Notwithftanding this, we
find the Go/fpels of St. Matthew and
St. John, the Epifile to the Romans,
and the jirft to Timothy, quoted unde”
the title of Divine Scriptures.—In the
Thtrd Book, chap. xiii. p. $88, are re-
cited various precepts of the Old Tef-
tament, which inculcate chaftity and
other virtues; he then adds*, ‘ But
the evangelical voice teaches chaftity
in yet greater perfection, when it fays,
_* Whofoever looketh on another man’s
wife to luft after her, has already
committed adultery in his heart.” And
it fays further, “‘ Whofoever ‘marries
one that is divorced, committeth adul-
tery; and whofoever putteth away his
wife, except on account of inchattity,

2°H de svaryytAsog Owsn emitatinaregay ddacnes
Week Myvelas Atyouca.

+. committeth

124 Lhe A uthenticity of
committeth adultery”.”—In the fame

book, chap. xiv. p- 389, ‘ But-the —

Gofpel fays‘, “Love your enemies, and _
pray for them that defpitefully ufe_you.
For if you only love them that love you,
what merit have you? Even robbers
alfo, and tax-gatherers do. this.”—In
the Second Book, chap. xxii. p. 365, he
quotes the paflage in 1 John i.» I? 3.
with the following introduction: ‘This
is taught us by the holy fcriptures; and
by all thofe conduéted by the Spirit,
among whom John fays*,’ &c.—With
the title of the ‘ Divine Doéirines,’. he
quotes paflages from Rom. xl. 7, 8,
1 Tim. ii 1, 2°—And in, the Third
Book, chap. xii. p. 388, he fays ‘ the
commands of the prophets and: evan-
gelical writers are throughout concor-

> See St. Mat. v. 28. 32.
W *& To d& EvayysAsov Acyes.

“Obey Mdacnovorw Hues cb ayreer yeaas nas weLvTss
mrsvcroPopos, e& wy lucene Atyes. .

e¢ Lib. IIT. Cap. xiv. p. 389. Ers mm xeneves
Tyceg & Devoe Aovyos- *
5 dant,

the New Tefiament. 195
dant, becaufe they have ali fpoken as
infpired’ by the very fame fpirit of
God *.’ |

We. may apply to this author our
previous obfervations on Juftin Martyr,
Tatian, and Athenagoras. Frequent
quotations from the writings of Homer,
Hefiod, Plato, Euripides, Aratus, &”.
difcovered that Theophilus was like-

wife a man of learning and Sigabiiossee
talents.

6. Clement of Alevandria.

CLEMENT, who was a teacher and
prefbyter at Alexandria, deferves everr
on this account the efteem of pofte-
rity—under his inftruétion was formed
Origen, the moft learned of alk the
fathers of the church. In his writings
which are yet preferved®, he quotes

: : all

f Aia to rove tavras mvevparoPogevs tye hss sh
Grow Atkarnnevase
. § Namely;—in the Cobortatio ad gentes, p. r~9gs
in the Pedagogus, p: 96—-314.-—in the eight books;
named.

126 The Authenticity of

all the books of the New Teftament
(except the fecond Epijfile of St. Peter,
the fecond and third Epifiles of St.
John, the Epiftle of St. James, and
the Epifile to Philemon), fo often by
name, and fo amply, that were I to
extract all the citations, they would
fill a. volume*.—To obtain a funda-
mental knowledge of the Chriftian re-
ligion this author had travelled into
Greece, Italy, Egypt, and Afia‘; he

named Stromata, (that is, Various Difcourfes), p. 934.
—and in the diflertation, Quis dives falvetur? p. 935
—g61. of the Edition of Bithop Potter, Oxford 715.
fol. See Le Nourry Adparatus ad Bibliothecam
maximam patrum, tom. i. p- 624. feq. where the
reader will meet with the moft ample information con-
cerning the writings of the Alexandrian Clement.
Even in thefe works we find very evident proofs of the |
great injury which Chriftianity has fuffered from its ©
connection with the dels ney philofophy. See
above; p. 95-

h Lardner has colleéted fome examples on every book ;
Credibility of the G. H. vol. ii, p. 210—330.

i In the Stromata,. Lib. i. p. 322. he fays that ‘his
book was a fhort fketch of the difcourfes which he
held with confiderable perfons in the above-mentioned

countries. y Rime
was

the New Teftament. 127°

was well acquainted with the writings
of the earlier Chriftian teachers, Bar-
nabas, Hermas, Clement, &c.*; he
had examined the apocryphal books
which then exifted among the Chrif-
tians, and compared them with the
genuine works of the facred writers'.—

All thefe circumftances eyince that he >

did not give his affent to the holy:
{criptures until he had accurately

k He cites them often, and with great efteem; but
he never pronounces them to be divine Scriptures, as
has been fhewn by Lardner, |. cit. p. 231234,

1 He frequently quotes paffages from the Gofpel
according to the Hebrews; the Gofpel according to
the Egyptians; the Preaching of Peter; the Revela-
tion of Peter; the Traditions of Matthias. But he
diftinguifhes them clearly enough from the genuine
writings of the Evangelifts and Apoftles. See Lard-
ner |. cit. p. 234—242.—-And even if we fhould grant
that he confidered the writings of Barnabas, Hermas,
and Clement of Rome, and the Sybilline verfes to
be divine, yet this would not tend to invalidate
the proof for the divinity of the Scriptures of the
New Teftament. For we ufe the teftimonies of the
ecclefiaftical Fathers not in order to prove, that thefe
Scriptures are of divine original; but, that they are
genuine writings of the.Evangelifts and Apofiles.

examined

128 —- The Authenticity of

éxamined them; and thérefore afford
confiderable weight to his sie vai for
their Pa 6 HR

7. Tertullian.

TERTULLIAN, a prefbyter at’ Car-
thage, ‘is the moft ancient of all. the
Latin fathers whofe works are now
extant.. His melancholy turn of mind,
and the evil cuftoms which began to
prevail: among Chriftians, induced: him
to embrace the fanatical do€rines of
the Montanifts. But his Montanifm
can by no means weaken his evidence
for the hiftorical truth of the New
Teftament; unlefs we coriceive that 4
fanatic. muft neceflarily lofe all his or-
gans of fenfe. Generally fpeaking, his
tenets have no farther influence on
his writings, than to-,occafion his
preaching a too fevere fyftem of mo-
rality; and to fhew’ that he revered
Montanus and his propheteffes Prif-
cilla and Maximilla as infpired ‘per-
fons,

the New Teftament. i29

fons, through whom the fpirit of God
had fpoken.~-We have a great variety of
his writings which difplay much facred
and prophane learning. But his ‘ftyle
is extremely tedious, obfcure,: replete
with. Latin words of his own forma-
tion, entirely inharmonious, and not
rarely bombattic. Cave afferts, in op- |
pofition to Lattantius™, that “it is |
lofty and mafculine, and carries a kind
of ‘majeftic eloquence along with it,
that gives a pleafant relifh to the ju-
dicious and inquifitive reader.” But
' the decifions of this author on ftyle and:
eloquence are as injudicious, as his
hiftorical information is unqueftionable.
That Tertullian was a man of ta-
lents, and well read in the claffic —
works of antiquity, is undoubted*. But
he had read, like many grammarians
and modern editors, with the aid of

m Hiftor. literar. Seriptor. ecclefiafticor.
a I quote here the edition of his works by Nico-
laus Rigaltius, Paris, 1647. fol. |
K ~ «the

130 The Authenticity of

the. memory alone, but without: tafte
or underftanding. Laétantius is of the
fame opinion, “‘ Tertullianus fuit omni
genere literarum peritus, fed in elo-
quendo parum facilis et minus comptus,
et multum obfcurus fuit.”

» His works are filled with quotations
by name, and long extracts from the
writings of the New Teftament.—In
the Apology for the Chriftians, . which
he delivered to the heathen magiftracy
at Carthage, he appeals, among other
things, to the ftrict obedience and re-
verence of the Chriftians towards the
Roman Emperours. ‘‘ How can you
fuppofe,” fays he°, ‘ that we have no
regard for the. welfare of the Empe-
rours? Behold only’the word of God,
our Scriptures, which we by no means
keep fecret, but which are even in the
hands. of our’ enemies. - Thefe com-
mand us—-—to pray even for our
enemies. ——- The following precept

® Apologeticus, p. 30.
alfo

the New Teftament. 131

alfo is found there exprefsly, Pray for
Kings, princes, and powers, that all
things may proceed peaceably with
you.”—Againft Praxeas he quotes his
proofs’ principally, as he expreffes him-
felf, from the New. Teftament, from
the Gofpels, and Apofiles; “If I
fhould not fettle this difpute from the
Scriptures of the Old Teftament, I~
will take, my proofs from the New —
Teftament. For I perceive both in
the Go/pels and the Apofiles, that God
is as well vifible as invifible’.”—He
mentions a Latin tranflation of thofe
writings, but which did not always
accurately exprefs the meaning of the
original text'.—He treats copioufly of
the four Gofpels, of St. Matthew, of
St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. John, in a
work againft Marcion’; and _ proves

p Adverfus Praxeam, p» 646.—de Novo Teffamento
fumam confirmationem ——In Ewvangeliis et in Apof-
tolis vifibilem et invifibilem Deum deprehendo.

q De Monogamia, p. 684.

t Adverfus Marcionem, Lib. iv. p. 502, 503.

K 2 | their

132 The Authenticity of
their authenticity from numerous and
credible evidences fince the times of
the Apoftles. He quotes, by name,
every jingle book (the Epiftle of St.
James, the fecond Epiftle of St. Pe-
ter, and the fecond and third Epif-
tles of St. John, alone excepted)
with the title of divine /criptures, and
fo often, that, to prove it in this place
by extra€ts from his works*, would be
perfe&tly fuperfluous. I will mention
only a fingle paffage more, which will
ferve to fhew how cautioufly men aéted
at that time in examining the genuine
apoftolical writings. In his work Againft
Herefies, De prieferiptione heretico-

® The reader will find examples in Lardner’s Cre-
dibility of the G, H. vol. ii. p. 256—277:—Or, the
truth of the affertion may be feen ftill more. clearly
from the lift of fcriptural paffages quoted by Ter-
tullian, which is contained in the above-mentioned
edition, p. 766<—795.—And we cannot difcover the
leaft trace that he had received any other book as
divine, or asa genuine writing of the Evangelifis and
Apofiles, See Lardner, p. 284, 285.

rum,

the New Tefiament. 133

rum', he {peaks with great confidence
of the authenticity of the apoftoli-
cal writings which were adopted as
fuch by orthodox Chriftians. He ap-
peals to the evidence of communi-
ties which the Apoftles had perfonally
eftablifhed, at Corinth, at Philippi, at
Theffalonica, at Ephefus, and at Rome;

whofe members, on account of their. ,

intimate intercourfe with the Apoftles,
could affert with the greateft degree
of certainty what writings a€tually ema-
nated from *them. ‘* Age jam, qui
voles curiofitatem melius exercere in
negotio falutis tue, percurre ecclefias
apoftolicas, apud quas ipfe adhuc ca-
thedree apoftolorum fuis locis prefi-
dent; apud quas ipfe authentice li-
tere eorum (their genuine works) re-
citantur. Proxima eft tibi Achaia?
habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a
Macedonia; habes Philippos, habes.

¢ Cap. xxxvi. ps 245. Lardner has very well
cleared up this ob{cure pages Credibility, vol. ii.
p- 266-269.

K 3 Theffa-

134 The Authenticity of

‘Theffalonicenfes. Si potes in Afiam
tendere; habes Ephefum. Si autem
Italia adjaces; habes Romam; unde
nobis quoque auétoritas prefto eft.”

‘SECT. ‘1.

Evidences from Works 6p PS Sectoid |
| Century, which are now lof.

THE enemies of our religion com-
plain often and loudly of the lofs of
thofe writings againft Chriftianity, which
were compofed by its ancient oppo-
nents; and fome of them accufe the
Chriftians, in language by no means
doubtful, of having been the caufe of
the deftru&tion of thefe works. But
they do not take into confideration,
that bf the writings alfo of the ancient
_ friends and defenders of Chriftianity
“many more have been loft than have
been preferved. And that, together
with thefe writings, many important
evidences for the Authenticity of the

New

the New Teftament. Orgs

‘New Teftament have’ alfo’ perifhed.
-We ‘have’ already" regretted this’ lofs
when we treated above of the hiftory
‘of the firft’ century. In the fecond
this deficiency is full greater and more
-to be lamented. ,

~ 1. Concerning Dionyfius, Bithop of
Corimth, Eufebius gives us the follow
ing information” :—He wrote feven ~
epiftles to different Chriftian commu-
“nities, and another to a Chriftian
matron: in ‘the epiftle to’ the commu-
‘nity at Athens he exhorted men to
‘believe and to aét according to the
Gofpel: in the epiftle to the Nicome-
dians he defended the true canon (or,
as others tranflate it, the rule of truth,
TO TNS aAnveras TUPlS AT Os xavovs),. in op-
pofition to the herefy of Marcion:
in the epiftle to the church at Amaftris
he had inferted expofitions of the Di-

« Book ii. chap. 1.
w Eufebii. Hift. Eccl. Lib. IV. Cap. xxiii. p. 184
187. edit. Reading. si

KA | _yine

136 The Authenticity of

vine Seriptures.—All thefe epiftles are
now loft; and with them much impor-
tant information, and many weighty
evidences for the Authenticity of the
New Teftament.

2. In the work of Tatian, which ftill
remains*, we find (on account of the
particular purpofe for which it. was
compofed), few allufions to the apof-
tolical writings.—But of thefe he had
treated fo much the. more amply in
his Harmony, or Asa Teooapuy, a Gofpel
compofed from the four Goilpels taken
- together. This work was well known
to Enfebius’; and although the author
might have inferted his heretical prin-
ciples even here, yet the lofs of this
work is greatly to be lamented as well
for many other caufes as on account of
its great antiquity *.— Irenzus*, and
Clement of Alexandria’, allude to

x See above, p. 108.

y Hift. Ecclef. Lib. IV, cap, xxix. p. 193) 194.

% See Valefius in Eufebium, |. cit.

* Lib. III. cap. xxiii. §. viii. p. 222. ed. Maffueti.

b Stromat, Lib. IIT. p. 547. Potteri.
other

the New Tefiament. 137

_other writings of this author, in which
he attempted to prove fome of his he-
terodox tenets by quotations from, the
Sirft Epijile of: St. Paul to the Gone
thians.

3. Hegefippus, a convert ome Ju-
daifm, compofed five books of Eccle-
fiaftical Hiftory, in which he gave an
account of the apoftolical preaching ®.
But of this work we have nothing re-
maining except a few fragments pre~
ferved by Eufebius and Photius. — Al-
though the hiftorian might not have
entirely laid afide that credulity and -
inclination for the fabulous, which was
peculiar to the Jews of his time (and
that this was the cafe is plain from —
the extrafts in the above-mentioned
- authors), neverthelefs, the lofs of his
work is much to be lamented; becaufe
there undoubtedly exifted in it much
material information for a hiftory of
the fcriptural writings, which he mutt

¢ Eufbius Hift. Ecclef. Lib. IV. cap. viii. p- 150.
have

138 The Authenticity of

have colleéted in: his intercourfe with
many confiderable teachers of) Chrif-
tianity.. However,.we difcover from
the fragments, that he was very well
-acquainted with the Scriptures of the
New: Teftament.’ For he quotes them
often, although not by name; aiid: his
manner of writing is invariably in that
Ja rerio of on eons to thefe
books*.

4. Melito, Bifhop of Sardis): has
rendered himfelf remarkable in eccle-
fiaftical hiftory, particularly by his. ex-
amination of the Sacred Books’ of the
Old: Teftament*®.. He compofed va-
rious ‘writings, of which we fearcely
know more than the‘titles, as they: are
‘given to us in Eufebius*. His books,

a See Lardner’s Credibility.
¢ He travelled into Paleftine, on purpofe to ‘obtain
‘iniformation ‘on the true Canon of theyOld Teftament.
)Eulebius has preferved his catalogue, H.E. Lib, IV.
cap. xxvi, p.190, 191.
“Hit, Ecclef, Lib. IV. cap. xxvi. p. 188, 189.

» WT

On

the New Teftament. 139
On the Condué of Chriftians ; Of the
‘Prophets; Of the’ Church ; “On ‘the
Lord’s Day; Of Obédience'to the Gof-
pel (megs vwaxons wisews); On the Con-
ception and Birth of Chrift (wees Llicéws
Hb yevertws Xeisov) ; On the Revelation
of St. John; and On the Incarnation
of God (wep: tocwparoy @8ov); con-
tained probably more’ particular | in-
formation ‘concerning the apoftolical
writings.—From the’ few fragments “df
his works we can produce him only as
an evidence for the high antiquity of
the Revelation of St. John; yet even
this is of dubious import, as we have
no information concerning the contents
of his treatife on this fubje& ®:

5. Of

g The.epiftle of Melito to a perfon of the name of
Onefimus, who was the caufe of his journey into Pa-
leftine, begins thus, (Eufebius |; cit. p. 191). 6 As
you have often, from your love towards the divine
doétrine, required of me that I fhould colle& from the
_ Law and the Prophets thofe paffages which concern the
Redeemer and our common faith; and as you were

defirous

140 The Authenticity of

5. Of the terrible perfecutions which
the Chriftians in Gaul fuffered in the
time of the Emperour Marcus Anto-
ninus, we find a very affecting relation
in. the epiftle which the communities
at Vienne and Lyons, in France, fent
on this account to the Chriftians in
Afia. _Eufebius has preferved a. great
part of it in his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory”.
The fufferings of the Chriftians, the
patience, cheerfulnefs, and fteadfaft
behaviour of the martyrs, are de-
fcribed by fentiments and expreffions
which are taken from the Scriptures of
the New Teftament.—“ Then was the
faying of the Lord fulfilled, Zhe time
will come when whofoever killeth you

defirous of knowing accurately the old feriptures, their
number, and the order in which they were compofed,
—-— I have therefore inquired after the books of the
Old Teftament,’ &c.--This paffage appears to prove,
that at that time exifted alfoa /econd colleétion of facred
books, under the name of the New 7e Pn naittak,
Lardner, |. cit. p. 148.
B Lib. V. cap imiv. p. 198. fq.
will

_ the New Teftament. 141

will think that he doth God fervice.”
John xvi. 2.—‘ They (viz. the mar-
tyrs) prayed for their executioners, as
did the holy Stephen, Lord, lay not
this fin to their charge.” A&ts vii. 50.
— They endeavoured to follow the
example of Chrift, Who, being in the
form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal to God.” Phil. ii: 6.—* He

(a martyr of the name of Vettius Epa- i

gathus) was a true difciple of Chrift,
following the Lamb whitherfoever it
goes.” Rev. xiv. 4.—When we refleé&
that this epiftle was written by a com-
munity in which Irenzeus (who has
depofed fuchi ample evidence for the
Scriptures’ of the New Teftament, |
p- 109.) was at that time a Prefbyter,
we may without Hefitation ufe thefe
paflages as proofs of the antiguity of
the Gofpel of St. John, of the Aas of
the Apojiles by St. Luke, of the Epif-
tles to the Romans and Philippians,
and of the Revelation of St. John;

6 although

14g The Authenticity of —

although thefe books are not quoted
by name.

6. Miltiades, one of the Apolbwife:
for Chriftianity, was, according to. the
information of Eufebius’, well fkilled,
in, the Divine Scriptures and Chriftian
theology. He had given convincing
proofs of his erudition in a book which:
he: wrote againft, the. Montanifts with,
this. title, wept, rou pn dav wpognrny, ev
exsaoe Aaaravy, «That it does not be-
come prophets to\ {peak in ecftacy;’,
and in his works againft the Jews and,
Gentiles". —‘‘ He has alfo. left, us,”
fays Eufebius, “ as well, in his, writings:
againft the Gentiles, as in thofe againft
the Jews, monuments of his zeal. for
the. divine books.” — Without ‘doubt,.
therefore, he had copioufly. ufed.. the

i Hift. Ecclef. Lib. V. cap. xvii. p. 2325 233.
_ & See Eufebius, |. cit.—In the firft work he had
undoubtedly made mention of the firft Epifile to the
Corinthians. Compare the remark. of Valefius in
loc. cit.
, authorities

the New Tefiament. 143

_ authorities of the Scriptures of. the
Old and New, Teftament.,

7. 1 have. produced Theophilus ad
Antioch above. (p. 122.).as. an» evi-
dence for the authenticity of the Gof
pels of St: Matthew.and St. John,.of
the Epiftle tothe Romans, and alfo
of the firft Epiftle to.Timothy.—Did
the work. which he wrote againft Her-
MOZENES, Wpos Thy aipecry Epporevoug, ftilk
exift, we might likewife prove from
him the antiquity of the Revelation of
St. John’,

g. Pantenus, whom Eufebius ™ ap-
parently .by miftake, mentions as pre-
fident of the catéchetical fchool ‘at
Alexandria, was, as. this author. in-
forms us,» fuch a faithful and: Inger:

1 See Eufebius; Ait. Ecclefs Libs Iv! cap. xxiv.
p- 287,;—who fays, that Theophilus -im» the above:
mentioned book had taken fome of ‘his .proofs from
the Revelation of St. John, ey @ ex tng amonwAurlews
Twavvou HEX ONTOS [LUPTUPbALEGe

m Hift. Ecclef. Lib. V. Cap. X-> p. 222s hos ao See
Lardner’s Credibility, vol. ii. p. 203.

fa pporter —

144 The Authenticity of

fupporter of Chriftianity, that he would
have inftru€ied pofterity as ufefully by
his writings, as he did his contempo-
raries by his fermons.—He preached
the Gofpel in India", and is faid to
have found there the Gofpel of St.
Matthew in the Hebrew language °.
Whether this information, which Eu-
febius gives ina doubtful manner, be
true or not, neverthelefs it proves thus

® The old ecclefiaftical hiftorians mean frequently
by this name Arabia Felix; fee Michaelis Intr. to the
N. T. vol. iii. p. 124. of the learned Mr. Marth’s
Tranf. ; but here it is India properly fo called, India
on the Ganges. Chriftianity was preached ‘there in
the firft century by the Apoftle St. Thomas. This is
afferted—1. By the ancient writers confulted by Eu-
febius, Hift. ecclef. iii. 1. v. 10.—2. By the moft
learned hiftorians of the Eaft, Affeman bibl. orient.
tom. ITI. par. i. p. 611, and par. ii. p.25.e-And 3.
By thofe Chriftian feéts, which have exifted from the
moft early antiquity in India, particularly on the coafts
of Malabar, who have an ancient tradition tothe fame
purpofe, and therefore call themfelves St. Thomas’s
Chriftians.——La Croze, 38.
© Eufebius 1, cit. «iba Aoyos ivpery aevror——— To
note Marbasoy evayyerrors x« T- A+
much,

» the NewT eftament. 145
much, that the Go/pel of St. Matthew

was already known in the earlieft ages.
—According to Jerom’s relation’, he
compofed alio certain commentaries on
the Bible.

9. The work of Clement of Alex-
andria, in which he principally confi-
_dered the Holy Scriptures of the Chrif-
tians, his Hypotupofes, is alfo loft,
except a few fragments. It contained
explications of many books both of the
Old and New Teftament, efpecially of
the Epiftles of St. Paul, and of the
Catholic Epiftles ’—Eufebius has pre-
ferved the following information from
it'—That the Epiftle to the Hebrews
~ was written by St. Paul in the Hebrew
language, and tranflated intc Greek by
St. Luke his companion; that the Gof-—

P Hujus multi—-—in fan&am feripturam extant
Commentarii. De vir. illuftr. cap. xxxvi.

@ Eufebius. Hift. Ecclef. Lib. VI. cap. xiv. p. 273+
et Photius, Biblioth. Codice cix. p. 287. edit. Andy,
Schotti. Rothomagi, 1653. folio.

t Loc. cit.

aL pels

146 —- The Authenticity of

pels which contain the Genealogies
(viz. of St. Matthew and St. Luke)
were compofed before the others; that
*St. Mark wrote his Gofpel at the re-
quett of St. Peter’s difciples at Rome,
and that St. Peter was fo far from re-
jetting it, that, at the inftigation of the
Holy Ghoft, he imparted a divine
confequence to it*; and that St. John

, : had

% Loc. cit. Comp. Lib. Il. cap. xv. pag. 64,
Trovra de ro mea Qe» (viz. that St. Mark had com-
pofed in writing the fpeeches of St. Peter, at the re-
queft of the Romans) gacs ro» Awosoaay (St. Peter)
emonarrbarros avry tev Tvevpares acbnvas tn twp
avdgwv weobuusa, xvewras re thy yeadny (the Gofpel
of St. Mark) ess evrevdsy rats exuAnciasse——The fen-
tence amoxarvavres avrw tov [Ivevaros has been
always referred by tranflators to the preceding words;
but if it be conftrued with thofe which follow, every
difficulty will vanifh.—* Peter, having difcovered what
had been done, and being inftigated by the Holy Ghoft,
granted the defire of thofé men, (the Romans) and
gave his fanétion to the Gofpel of St, Mark, that’ it
fhould ‘be read in the Chriftian communities.” Lard-_
ner torments himfelf with the difficulty of this paf.
fage; Credibility, vol. ii. p.215. But amidf all his
obfervations he has not reflected that the ftructure of the

words

8

the New Teftament. {47

had written ByEvnotixoy tuayfeAiov, a Gof-
pél which treated efpecially of the
divine nature of Chrift, the others
being principally employed on his hu-
man. Tov..- lwavyny eoxalov cuusdovre,
OTs TH Cwpmarine ty Tos Everylersors dednrwrat,
wplloamevta vireo Tay “Yyrwptawy wveraare
Seogoonievta wvevpariney woimcas evarylersors

Eufebius and Jerom would have per-
formed ftill greater fervice to pofterity,
had they made longer and more com-
plete extracts from thofe writings of
confiderable teachers which exifted
in their times. Both of them notice
various teachers of the fecond century
who had written commentaries on the
feriptural books. But as they are
‘filent.on their contents, we can nei-
ther determine what information thefe

words in Eufebius does not by any means neceffitate
the conneCtion of cemoncerud. ut. A. With yrorvra—
Asrosodov: ‘as if the Holy Ghoft had ‘revealed to St.
Peter, that the Romans had petitioned St. Mark to
compofe -his Gofpel, and that le had granted their
gequeft. |

LgZ writers

148 The Authenticity of

writers gave, nor on what books of

the Bible they had smepaen their
labours *.

CHAP.

t ‘We can make no ule of the fpurious writings of
this century for our prefent purpofe.—1. The Aéts of
Paul and of Thecla attribute indeed many of the
fame fentiments to the Apoftle St. Paul, as exift in the
books of our New Teftament. But it is uncertain
whether this be the fame work which is mentioned by
the Ecclefiaftical Fathers. (Lardner’s Credibility, vol.
ii. p. 310).—-2. The Sibylline Oracles were forged

in all probability about the fecond century. They
alfo relate (in prophecy, as they pretend) almoft every

fingle event of the evangelical hiftory. But they do

not mention either exprefsly, or by name, any of the

writings of the New Teftament. Lardner, 1. cit.

p> 313. feq.—3. The Teftaments of the Twelve Pa-

-triarchs fpeak often in the language of the New Tef-
tament. But it is moft uncertain, whether this

writing be of that early antiquity which many fcho-

lars imagine. Origen quotes a work under this title.

But how can it be proved that the work, which we

ftill poffefs, is the very fame? Lardner, 1. cit. p. 324.

feq.—4. The Recognitions of Clement, (fee Cote-

lerii Patres Apoftol. vol. i. p. 483. feq-) which con-

tain Difputations of the Apoftle St. Peter with Simon

Magus, and mention other difcourfes, and a variety

of miracles by the fame Apoftle;—5. The Clemen-

tine Homilies, which are almoft of the very fame

tenours

the New Teftament. 149

CHAP. III.
Witneffes in the Third Century.

SECT. I.

Heidénives of Witneffes in the Third
Century.

BEFORE I introduce the complete
catalogues, which Origen and Eufebius
have left us, of thafe writings which
the Chriftians of the firft century held
as genuine works of the Evangelifts
and Apottles, and venerated as divine

tenour, and in all probability are the ground-work
from which, after many additions and improvements,
arofe the work mentioned above, in No, 4. (Cotelerius,
l, cit. p. 603. feq.) ;—And, 6, The Clementine Epi-
tome, a compilation out of the Recognitions and
Homilies, (Cotelerius, 1. cit. p. 755. feq.)—-—-: thefe
three works, te which the venerable name of Clement
has been forged, contain merely fimilar expreffions and
fentiments, but not a fingle quotation, either exprefsly,
or by name, from the books of our New Teftament.
Extracts from the above-mentioned writings may be
feen in Lardner, |, cit. p. 442. feq.

L3 books,

150 The Authenticity of
books, I will curforily mention fome
other witneffes who’ lived in the be-

ginning of the third century, but whofe
writings have not deicended to us.

1. Caius Romanus.

CAIUS, who-was a Prefbyter of the
church of Rome, and a moft learned
man, quotes in his Dialogue with Pro-
culus, a follower of Montane: all
‘the Epiftles which we have at prefent
under the name of St. Paul, as genuine
works of this Apofile, except the Epif-
tle to the Hebrews, which he’ has
omitted to enumerate among the reft,
—We find: this information in. an. ex-
traét which Eufebius has preferved
from ‘this work which no longer exifts ‘

2. Hippolytus Portuenfis.

From “the fragments which we ftil]

Hate of the works" of Hippolytus

Rly 4 ike to walteoth Sct | Portuentis,

; Hit Keelef. Lib; VE. ch. xx: p.'285. 9
w Jets Albert: Fabricius’ had ‘collefted thefe frag-

: ments,

the New Tefiament. 151 |

Portuenfis, we are led to believe that
he was a learned man; and the con-
cifenefs, folidity, and force with which
_ he wrote, clearly prove that he far
excelled all the writers of his time.
In fupport of this I fhall quote a fingle
paflage*,. which, if not an adequate
teftimony for the authenticity of our
four Gofpels, will at leaft demonftrate ~
the truth of the hiftory related in
them. Hippolytus is proving that Jefus
was both perfeé& man, and perfeé&
God. “His humanity,” fays he, “may
be eafily perceived, by the circum- |
{tances of his feeling hunger and fa-
tigue and thirft; by his fearfully fleeing,
and anxioufly praying; by his fleeping
on a pillow; his imploring for the re-
moval of the cup of forrow; his

ments, and publifhed them together with the other
works attributed to him, at Hamburg, 1716, 2 vol.
folio. ? ?

* Ithas been preferved by’Theodoret. See Fabricii
Hippolyt, vol.i, p.'268.

L A d fweating

152. The Authenticity of

fweating from fear of death, and his
being ftrengthened by an angel; by his
being betrayed by Judas, mocked by
Caiaphas and Herod, fcourged by Pi-
Jate, infulted by the foldiers, and cru-
cified by the Jews; his commending
with a loud voice his fpirit to the Fa-
ther; his bending his head and giving
up the ghoft; having his fide pierced
by a fpear, being laid, wrapped up in
fine linen, in the grave, and raifed up
on the third day by the Father. His
divinity may be eafily difcovered, fince ©
he was worfhipped by angels, vifited by
fhepherds, expeéted by Simeon; he
received the teftimony of Anna, was
vifited hy the Magi, and announced by
a ftar; he changed water into wine at
the marriage feaft, calmed the ftormy
fea, walked upon the water, gave
fight to one born blind, raifed La-
zarus to life, who had been dead ‘four
days, and performedymany other mi-
racles, forgiving fins, and imparting

miraculoug

the New Tefiament. 153

miraculous powers to his Apoftles.”—
As early as the timé, of Eufebius this
writer was fo little known, that men
were even ignorant of what place he was
Bifhop’. And fcholars of the prefent.
day, after having examined all’ the
documents of antiquity, remain {till
uncertain’ whether we poffels ‘any
writings which can be fafely attributed
to him’, We do not even know whe-
ther he lived in Italy or in Arabia; |
whether he was a divine or a ftatef-
man* | |

3. Ammonius:

Ammonius (whom Eufebius and Je-
rom fuppofe to have been the celeé-

¥ “Inmodvros, itepacmmporsws exuAnoiace Hitt.
Eccl. Lib. VI. ‘cap. xx. p. 284.

2 See Mill’s Prolegomena in N. T. Num. 655. et
Fabricius Preefat. in Hippol,

4 Some helieve that he was Bifhop of Porto, in
Ttaly; others, of Portus Romanus, in Arabia Felix.
See Fabricius 1, cit.—Heumann afferts, that he was not
a fpiritual, but a temporal eqicxorroes

brated

154 The Authenticity of

‘brated Alexandrian philofopher Am-
monius Saccas), compofed a Harmony
of the Four Gofpels, in which he had
ufed the Gofpel of St. Matthew as a
foundation®.- That which we poflefs
at prefent under: his name is, if not
‘entirely forged, at leaft very much
mutilated®. I therefore reckon. this
work among the loft writings of anti-
quity; and would proceed direétly to
the catalogues of Origen, but have
yet to remark that

4, Julius Africanus,

WHO flourifhed in the beginning of
this century, has afforded an evidence
for the authenticity of the Go/pels of
St. Matthew and St. Luke, in the
epiftle to Ariftides, in which he endea-

b Eufebius Hift. Eccl. Lib. VI. c. 19: p- 282.
Ejufd. epiftola ad Carpianum, which is prefixed to his
Harmony. Hiefonymus, De Vir. Illuftr. cap. lv.

© See Wetftein Prolegom. ad N. T. Tom. I. p. 65.
fqu. Comp. Lardner’s Credibility, Vol. II. p. 413,
and the following pages.

? vours

the New Tefament. 155

yours to/remove the ¢pparent contra
diétion ‘in ‘the genealogy ‘of Chrift as
delivered by thefe Evangelifts*, |
_ » 5. Origen.

~ORIGEN, the moft learned and
laborious of all the fathers, who was_
in fuch high eftimation even. among
the heathen philofophers, that they
dedicated their writings to him, and
tranimitted them to him for his. re-
vifal*, has particularly diftinguifhed
flimfelf by his labours on the biblical
writings. He not only. compofed a
celebrated critical work on. the Old
Teftament, but wrote alfo a threefold
expofition of the books of the whole
Bible; Scholia, or fhort notes.;—
Tomes, or extenfive commentaries, m
which he employed all his learning,
eritical, facred, and prophane ;—and

@ See the extraét from the above mentioned epittle

_. in Eufebius Hift. Eccl. Lib, I, cap. vii. )p. 21-25...
© Eufebius Hift. Eccl. Lib. VI. cap. xix. p»279-

| Traéts,

156 The.Authenticity of

Traéts, or homilies to the people’. Of
thefe only a fmall portion is come
down to us, and that for the moft
part in Latin tranflations made by
Jerom or Rufinus; the reft have been
deftroyed by the ravages of time.

He is the firft who has given us a
perfed catalogue of thofe books, which
Chriftians unanimoufly, or at leaft the
major part of them have confidered ‘as
genuine writings of the Apoftles, and
as works of divine infpiration.—In nis
thirteenth Homily, upon Genefis$, he
difeovers in the fervants of I{aac, who
dug cifterns, a type of the fcriptural
writers. ‘“‘ His fervants,” fays he, “are
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John:
His fervants alfo' are’ Peter, James,
Jude, and the Apoftle Paul: who: all

£ Hieronymus, Prolegom, in Ezechiel,—He fuperin-
tended alfo a very accurate edition of the whole New
Teftament, Hieronymus in Matth. xxiv. 36. Qrigenes
in Joan.” s. Comp. Ernefti De Origene Thterpre Br
auct.—in the Opufe. Theol. p- 306, feq.. °

“¢' Guy Tom, IL. po'g¢/edit. De la Rue.

dig

the New Leftament.- 157

dig the wells of the New Teftament.”
--In the fame manner he allegorifes*
the hiftory of Jofhua, in his feventh
Homily on this book’. ‘When. our
Lord Jefus Chrift came, of whom that |
fon of Nave was a type, he fent forth
the priefts, his Apoftles, with trumpets,
from which they founded the heavenly
doétrine. Matthew founds firft with
his prieftly trumpet in his Gofpel.
Mark alfo, and Luke and John founded
each his own trumpet. In like man-
ner Peter founds aloud with the. two
trumpets of his Epiftles; as does
James alfo and Jude. John founds
again with his trumpet, in his Epiftles -
and in the Revelation; and Luke in
his Aéts of the Apoftles. Laft of all
appeared he who faid of himfelf, ‘and
laft of all God appointed me an Apof-
tle,’ and thundered with the trumpets

h Concerning this pernicious and abfurd mode of
interpretation, fee above, p. 97+
-4 Oper. Tom. TI. p. 412.

of e

158 The Authenticity of

of his fourteen Epiftles fo powerfully
that the walls of Jericho, and all the
machines of fuperftition, and the doc-
trines of the philofophers fell to the
econ 5 ,

- The pafiages here quoted are extant
at prefent only in the Latin verfion.
Eufebius has been at the pains to ‘col-_
le& in a particular chapter“, the ca-
talogue of the books of the New Tef-
tament from. the works of Origen.
From his Commentary upon the Gof-
pel of St. Matthew he copies the fol-
lowing paflage, which determines what
hiftories of the life of Jefus were uni-
verially received among the Chriftians.
_“ T have learned by tradition (the evi-
dences of antiquity) concerning the
four Gofpels, which are exclufively
received without difpute by the whole
church of God under heaven, That

& Cap, xxv. Lib. VI. p. 289—292. The-title of
this Chapter is, dwe raw evdsacbrxwy inten ep ss a
namely, Origen, :

the

the New Te ament. 159

the firft was written by St. Matthew—
- whe compofed it in the Hebrew lan-
guage for the ufe of the profelytes
from Judaifm;—the fecond by St
Mark,—the third by St. Luke,—and
the laft by St. John.” —Concerning the
Epifiles of the Apoftles, the hiftorian
- gives us from. the ‘ Commentaries upon
St. John’s Gofpel,’ and the ‘ Homilies’
on the Epifile to the Hebrews,’ the
following information: “St Paul did
not write to all the communities which
he himfelf had eftablifhed, and ‘the
Epiftles which he did write are not
long. St. Peter has left one Epiftle,
univerfally acknowledged ; the fecond
alfo ought not to be entirely excluded
from the number of his works, becaufe »
the matter. is ftill doubtful, St. John
has written a Gofpel, the: Revelation,
and a fhort Epiftle. The fecond’ and
third Epiftles ought not to, be. entirely
rejected, fince they were -confidered —
by various people as genuine works of

HR Aira sRiy oat:

160 The Authenticity of

St. John. The Epiftle to the Hebrews
could not well come from St. Paul,
becaufe the Greek in which it is writ-
ten is more elegant than that of the
- other Epiftles of this Apoftle. In all
_ probability the fubjeét matter was fur-
nifhed by St. Paul, but the conftruc-
tion of the words is the work of fome
other perfon who recorded the thoughts
of the Apoiftle, and illuftrated. them
with various remarks.’—-This is Ori-
gen’s review of the writings of the
New Teftament ; I will infert below
the whole paffage of Eufebius, from
which ‘I have here only extracted cer-
tain parts’. Whoever defires to re-

ceive

1 Loc. cit. p.290, 292. ev Of rw wewry THY EK TO
xare MarBatov svayytAsov, Tov exxAnorasixoy Qudaarrar
AUVOVE Move Tigoape sdevar evAYyyEALe paeTUgET aly
ode wus ypaQwr? ws ev wagadooes pabwy wep Tu»
TIT TULUY EVRY YEAIWY, & Kab Move aYaVTICENTE Est EV TN
oro GB pare exdAncia TY Oew’ ors mewror sv yeypan-
Tas To xara Toy wore TeAWINY, Ueegov Oe wmosorey Ince
Xeire Marbasoy, txdedwxora avro ros amo ledwiope
TIS EVTRTs vec pmo iPpatxoss ourretaypevor’ | Osu-

Figov

the New Tefiament. 161

ceive further. information of this
teacher’s evidences for the New Tef-
tament,

tepov ds To xara Mapxor, ws Tlergos UPnyncaro aure
WoncavT ay Ov xab Usoy EY tn xeeDorrnn ETS OAN da
TouTwY wmoroynce Dacuwy, aomaceTat tuas 7 ev
BaGvawys cuvexrAenTn, xees Maexosy 0 diog pee ras
Tpirey 770 LOTH Aovney, ro vmro Tlavas emobvouLevoy
sUmyyeAror, Tors como Tuy eOvwy wecrolmnoTa® sms Tact
To xara Iwavvny® xo ev Tw WeUWTw Of TwY ES TO KATE
loavny eEnyntinwy, 6 avtos TavTa weet Tw E@isoAwy
suv Aosoawy Onow? & ds ixavwbers Daxovos yeverbas
ang nasyns adnxns 8 YEG AOTOS HAAD MvEUUwTOS
Tlavaos" & memAngwnws To evaryyersoy caro “lepouraanu
Kas xuKrw exes Te TAdvgsux, ovde macass eypatery
ais edidecZev EXHANTIAIS’ GAA nob aes eyparler, oAKyous
shyous emecesAe’ Tlerpos de 6D o osmodopertcce n Xeiss
EXKANT HO, NG TLAGS ade BAxXKTIOTXUTOUTH bey EMIS OAnY
Suoroyoumerny xaTAAEAOLTTED® es w oe xas OeuTeEpcery
apDrBarreras yae- Ti des Tees TOU avaMETovTOS Aevyeby
ems To snboo rou Ince, Iwasa 3 os evayyeArov iv xa-
Tarsrovmev, duoroyur Suvacbar Tocwure mwomocty,
evds & xocjno5 xwenras eduvato* sygarbe OF xa Tn»
amoxarviv, xervbers ciwmncas nar on yparbas Tes
Tov era Beovrwy Pwvas* xaeTarsrorme de nab EwISoAny
Wavy oAvywv siywy ssw de xe devregay xb THITHV"
emt 8 TWavtes Pack yvncrovg ewas Tavtes* wAny
BX EIT Sixwy aUPeTEpas ExaToy® ets eos TovTass
wees TNS Wpos “EBgasous emssoAns sv Taig Eko AUTH
buses Toure DarapRavar Sos 6 xapaxtne Ts
M Atzews

162 The Authenticity of

ment, thay’ confult Lardtier’s Credi-
bility, in which this article is treated’
with moft particular attention.

| SECT. A ene TIRED:

ovr

Tn ormation colle@ed by Eujebius in,
- the Works * tHe T nro Linft Cen-
turies.

HAD the writers of the two firf
centuries pofiefled the” fame anxious
care

Aekews tng weos EBeusoug emvysyeappsens embsoAnss “ope
exes To €v Aoyw MwriKoy TB Amor oAuy suoroyneares
Emvrov wrwTyy thyer Tw Aoyos TouT Ess tn Qeace®
arAAw Esty 9 ETISOAN Si My rng Askews “EAAnvinwrepals
Wks 0 EBS AEVOG xeivery Doacewy OsaPogas, 3000s
Yncus av" WaAby TE ay OTs TA yoNULATa THs ExISoANS
bavnacsca ESky HME OU OevTepa twy AgrosoAinwy 5 .0Ao=
YOUMEIWD YA MaTWly Abb TETO av CuUOnTas Eines
BAnbecy mas 6 Teorey wy Th avayvwores tm Amrosortnn®
' FouTots wed gare eereyege Asywye etyw ox amopar-
VO{AEVOS ESTOL/A” Cory OTS TH ev vonUaTa TY AmosoAy sev
HOt Dears nas 4 cuvbects, amousnuovevcarros T1v05
To AMOSOAind, xo womrsers THIAMypaPnctarvres Te
thenutve vio Te OiacnaAy* eb Tis BY ExKANOIAE EXES

TaUTUy

the NewTeftament. —- 163

- eare for pofterity which Origen evinced,
we fhould havé been able to prove
the authenticity of the books of the
New Teftament with greater eafe and
more fatisfaétion. Yet Eufebius’ has,
ina certain degree, fupplied’ the lofs.
This father of ecclefiaftical-hiftory af-
fures' us that he had read the works
of Chriftian antiquity with great dili- -
gence, and efpecially with the view of
afcertaining what writings had been
received fince the origin of Chriftianity
as genuine works of the Evangelifts
and Apoftles.. ‘He imparts the refult
of this inquiry in’ feveral particular
chapters of his Ecclefiaftical Hiftory.
——In the Third book™ he treats of the
Epiftles of the’ Apoftles; refpeéting
which, he had found in the works of

raurny emssorny wo TlavAv, avty evdouimestro tor ems
THT 8 yae eixn bb aexaior avdees we TlavAe maga-
Ordwuacs* rig de 6 yealas Tv emisodnys To wey arndes
cos esdes. ;

m'Cap. ili, iv, and xxiv. p. 89--92, and 115—
1x8,

M 2 the.

164 The Authenticity of

the firff and fecond centuries the fol-
lowing information: ‘That the firft
Epiftle of St. Peter has always been
univerfally received as divine: but
that called his fecond Epiftle, although
not received as divine, evdiabnxos ; has
neverthelefs been carefully ftudied as
an ufeful work; that the fourteen
Epiftles, which go under the name of
St. Paul, have been univerfally re-
vered as divine fcriptures, except that
fome have doubted concerning the
Epiftle to the Hebrews, becaufe the
Romifh church did not confider it to
be the work of St. Paul’. That St.
Luke, a phyfician, has left us two
books, divinely infpired, namely, a
Gofpel, and the Aéts of the Apoftles ;
and that many of the ancients were of
opinion that St. Paul means this Gof-
pel whenever he fpeaks of fome Gofpel

n Tiss mbernxacs tay aeos ECpes, wpos TNE
“Poyceroy exxrncias wo un Tlavas car avrny avTires
yecbas Onowrrese

of

the New Tefiament. 165

of his (St. Paul's) own. That the
Gofpels were written in the following
order of time; St. Matthew’s firft of
all, for the Hebrews, and in the He-
brew language; then St. Mark’s, which
was compofed at the requeft of the
Chriftians at Rome; afterwards that of
St. Luke, who was induced to under-
take it from the fpurious gofpels which —
were at that time in circulation; and
that laft of all St. John had perufed
the three preceding and confirmed
them; yet, as they related only the
.attions of Chrift which took place
after the imprifonment of John the
Baptift, he therefore had thought it
neceflary to write his Gofpel, and fup-
ply in it what was. wanting in the
others: and that he in particular had
received the matter concerning the
Divinity of Chrift from the Holy
Ghoft. That befides this Goipel, the
firft Epifile, which bears the name of
St. John, has been univerfally afcribed

M 3 7 to

166 The Authenticity of

to him both by ancients and moderns;
that the fecond and third Epiftles were
rejected by fome; and that the majo-
rity were perfeéily in doubt concerning
The Revelation®.’ p

‘Eufebius has given the moft perfect
account of this fubject in the twenty-
fifth chapter of the third book?; in
which he colleéts and lays before the
reader. the refult of the information
contained in detached parts of the
preceding books.

In this he delivers not his own pri-
yate opinion, but the opinion of the
church, exxaAnciasinn wapadwoss, the fum

°‘H Meorepe Tov emsporwy Waee TE TOs yUY Hab TOIs
ETE HEX abors vLDIAEnTOG WOAOYNTAs AITIASYOTaE
de dt Avie duo tng Y aaonarvrews ef? Exacregoy evs voy
muen Tos WoAAKS Tegrerxeras 4 doea- Loc. cit. p. 118,
But concerning the Revelation, Ewen yet (that is, not-
withftanding all preceding inquiries) the majority are
in doubt, (know not, whether to hold it genuine or
Spurious. ) . f |
p The commencement of the chapter is as follows:
Evaoyoy 2 evravbe yevomeves avansParasrmoncbar ras
Pnrabeioas rng tawns JaOnuas ypaParse
of

the New Tefiament: +67

-of what he had found in the writings
of the primitive Chriftians, The cited
paffage contains confequently the opi-
nion of the whole Chriftian church
during the three firft centuries; and a
proper infight into its meaning is of
great importance to us.— Eufebius
- unites the volas yeapes (thofe writings
which were actually fpurious, or thought
fuch) with the evtiAsyouevas (the doubt-
ful). After having fpoken of the —
CLUTIAEYOLMEV AL, he immediately adds, ev
mois voloss xa xaraneraydw say Havas
meaksuy n yeudn, 0, TE Asyomevos Toisny
“ among the {purious are to be reck-
oned the A&s of Paul, the Shepherd,”
&c. Whence it appears to me clear,
that he {peaks in this paflage of the
authenticity of the books, whether they
are genuine or fpurious, and not of
their divine in{piration.— Again, he
calls the sporoyzuevas yeaour (univer-
fally: received books) alfo, arnfas xe
anareso, genuine and not forged; and

MA oppofes

168 The Authenticity of

oppofes them to thofe which were
falfely attributed to the Apoftles, sais
- ovopnats twv Arnosorwy meopepopevais.—He
places the Revelation of St. John alfo
under the voba or avriAsyoueve, for this
reafon, becaufe the majority of the
ancients doubted whether they fhould
confider it as the writing of St. John.
the Apoftle, or of fome other perfon,
confequently as genuine or {purious.—
Lafily, he alfo claffes the Shepherd of
Hermas, the Revelation of Peter, the
Aéts of Paul, and the Epittle of Bar-
nabas, under the vole (or, eUTIAcyopeva)_
Now among the ancients none ever
thought thefe books divine’, but their
authenticity indeed has been called in
queftion. | : |

Thefe arguments evince, if I mif-
take not, that Eufebius {peaks here of
the authenticity, not of the divine in-
fpiration of thofe writings which ex-
ifted in his time under the names of

4 See above, p. 48, note 4.

the

the New Teftament. 169

the Apoftles, Evangelifts, and apof-
tolical men. His intention in this
place is not to mention what writings
were confidered as divine; but to af-
certain the three following points :—
1, What writings were received by the
ancients as genuine works of the Apof-
tles, Evangelifts, and apoftolical men:
—g. Of what writings the authenticity
had been called in queftion:—And 3.
Thofe which were entirely reje€ted, as
f{purious. |

On thefe points the opinion of the
three firft centuries was as follows :

J. “Oporoysmevas yeagar ( avwporoynrevas ;
or, aanbers xa amwrasos) writings which
were untverfally received as the genuine
works of the perfons whofe names they
bear.

‘In this clafs Eufebius reckons, 1.
The four Gofpels; 2. The A&s of the
Apoftles; 3. The Epiftles of St. Paul;
4. The firft Epiftle of St. John; 5.
The firft Epiftle of St. Peter. The

Revelation

170 The Authenticity of —

Revelation of )St.. John might alfo per-
haps be placed in this clafs, becaufe
fome think; its, authenticity .ineontro-
vertible, yet. the majority leave the
matter undetermined *.

II. AvriAtyomevcs, writings on whofe
authenticity the. ancients were not una-
nimous; which fome. held to be ie
pofititious °.

_ According ‘to Eulebius,. even thefe
have the majority of voices among. the
ancients in their favour. He exprefsly
calls them, \.yoogina OWS: TOS TOAAOLS
(writings acknowledged :hy moft to be
genuine), and WUEH WALSOS THY EXKAH-
TlasiKiW yrryvwaXoper ce (received by the
majority). ‘A few doubted of their
authenticity; and. therefore Eufebius
ranks them under the contefted, avr
Aevyomeva, OF vola,

¥ See above, p- 166,

s He names’ thefe writings alfo vba: yeafas, fpu-
rious writings ;/ that is, according to the opinion of
fome. Thefe yobas do not, therefore, compofe a dif-
tinct % claf as.is the general fuppofition.

vA | In.

the New Tefiament.

In this clafs he enumerates, of the
writings of the’ New Teftament, 1.
- The Epiftle of St. James; 2. The Epif-
tle of St. Jude; 3. The fecond Epifile
of St. Peter; 4. The fecond and third
| Epiftles of St. John. The Revelation
of St. John, he adds, is alfo by fome
placed in this clafs‘.

And, of other writings, the A@s of
St. Paul; The Shepherd of Hermas;
The Revelation of St. Peter; the Epif-
tle of Barnabas; The Doétrines of the
Apoftles; and the Gofpel secede to
the Hebrews.

IIL. Aroma nas duoceEn, (abfurd and
_ impious); Writings which had been
untoer fally nejedted as evidently fpu-
rious.

In this clafs he includes the Gofpels
of Peter, of Thomas, and of Matthias;

* For in early times fome believed that this work
was ot compofed by John the apoftle, but by a pref-.
byter of the fame name, or by fome other perfon. See
the following sth chapter of this book.

the

172 The Authenticity of

the As of Andrew, of John, and of
other Apoftles. Thefe writings, fays he,
contain evident errors, are written in
a ftvle entirely different from that of
the Apofiles, and have not been
thought worthy of being mentioned by
any one of the ancients.

CHAP.

the New Teftament. ee ee

CHAP. IV.

-

A fummary Recapitulation of the
Evidences mentioned above.

I WILL now reduce into order the
depofitions of the witneffes, who have
been already feparately examined, and
enable the reader to perceive at one
view what has been the opinion of men
during the two firft centuries and half
on each individual book of the New
Teftament.

lL. The Gofpel by St. Matthew

IS pronounced to be a genuine work
of the Evangelift whofe name it bears,
1. by Papias, 87*; 2. by many ancient
writers of the firft century, confulted

* The figures after the names of the different
witnefles enumerated:in this chapter, referto the pages
of this work, where their evidences may be found.

by

174 The Authenticity of

by Eufebius, 89; 3. by Juftin Martyr,
105; 4. Tatian, 186; 5. Irenaeus, 110;
6. Athenagords, 117; 7. Theophilus
of Antioch, 123; 8. Clement of Alex-
andria, 125; 9. Tertullian, 132; 10.
Ammonius 153; 11. Julius Africanus,
154; 11. Origet, 155;"and by all the
primitive writers, -without i ad Bi
whom Eufebius had read, 169. : |

And this may be inferred Des, yet
only with a degree of probability, from
the writings of Barnabas, 37; Clement
of Rome, 53; . Ignatius, ut and Po-
lycarp, 81%.

u Lardner has colleéted together the evidences of |
the later witneffes in his Supplement to the firft book
of the fecond part of the Gofpel Hiftory, vol. i. p. 95
—102. of the firft edition.—He has treated of them
more copioufly in the work which has been fo often
mentioned, ‘his ‘Credibility of the Gofpel Hiftory.—
In the Supplement he has generally confined himfelf
to thofe witnefles who determine alfo the time when
the different books of Holy Writ were compofed.

‘The reader will therefore find more witnefles enume-
rated in my Catalogue than in his.

Il. The

the er ie yoniat 175
a0. T he Gyfpk bp St. Marks.

IS déclared to bea’ ‘genuine writing
of the Evangelitt, to whom itis afcribed,
by 1. Papias, -875 2. “mnatly ” ancient
writers Of the’ fire cetitiity, confulted
by Eufebius, 89; 3. Juftin Martyr, 1055
4. Tatian;” 436; 5 Teenatts, 1105 6.
Clement of ‘Alekandi, | 1857 Tere
~ tullian;® {32 *8. ne de tite 1533) @&
Origen, 1585 and’ by ‘a the ancients
whom Eufebius had read, 169." 1° 196

Clement of Rome, 53; and Tena-
tius, 78)oweré, \probably, ‘of the fame

opinion, ". ¥ Midi Isorg pw 4c
uf. ‘The Coppel Utd Aas oF" ep
PB ech _tles by St. Tithe, ‘ Beh,

aries

| “ARE adopted as the undeniable
| works of St.’ Luke, the companion: and
difeiple of St, Paul, by, 1. the ancient
writers of the firft century, -confulted

“ w For he later witness, fee Sauer s Supplement,
vol. i, p. 173-180. of the firft edition.

by

176 The Authenticity of

by Eufebius, 89; 2. Juftin Martyr, 105;
3. Tatian, 136; 4. Ireneus, 110; 5.
Clement of Alexandria, 125; 6. Ter-
tullian, 132; 7. Ammonius, 153; 8.
Julius Africanus, 154; 9. Origen, 155;
and by all the ancient writers quoted
- by Eufebius, 169.

Clement of Rome, 53; Ignatius, 78 ;.
Polycarp, 81; and the Communities
at Lyons and Vienne, 141, may alfo,
perhaps, be reckoned among the num-
ber of witnefles *.

IV. The Gofpel by St. John

IS, with great unanimity and par-
ticular refpe€l, confidered as the ge-
nuine writing of this Apoftle by, 1. the
ancient writers of the firft century,
confulted by Eufebius, 89; 2. byJuftin
Martyr, 105; 3. Tatian, 109. 136; 4.
Ireneus, 110; 5. Theophilus of An-

* For the later witnefles, fee Lardner’s Supplement,
Vol. i. pe 218227, firlt edition.

tioch,

the New Teflament. = 177

tioch, 123; 6. Clement of Alexan-
dria, 125; 7. Tertullian, 132; 8. Am-
monius, 153; 9. Origen, 155; and by
all the Fathers cited by Eufebius, 169.
To thefe might be added the Com-.
munities at Lyons and Vienne, 141’.

V. The Epifile of St. Paul to the

Romans

IS declared to be authentic by, 1.
Ireneus, 111; 2. Theophilus of An-
tioch, 123; 3. Clement of Alexandria,
125; 4. Tertullian, 132; 5. Caius, 150;

y Ibid. p. 382-390. -— The Alogi, a fect that
exifted in the fecond century, are faid to have rejeéted
it. But we have to information concerning thefe
Alogithat can be depended on: for, properly {peake
ing, we have none elfe befides the later and uncertain
accounts of Philaftrius and Epiphanius. And were
the cafe otherwife, ftill what can the teftimony, or
rather the bare affertion of anonymous perfons ayail,
when oppofed to the unanimous, confiderate, and weighty
evidences of all the ancients, both learned and un-
learned, See Walch’s Hittory of Hereticks, vol. i.
p- 569, fq. of the original ; and Profeffor Schroeckh’s
Ecclef, Hift. vole iii, p. 175+ feq. of the original. —

N 6. Origen,

178 The Authenticity of

6. Origen, 155; and by all the An-
cients noticed by Eufebius, 169. |

It would:appear that this is alfo tef-
tified by Ignatius, 78;, Polycarp, 82 ;
and the ,Communities at Lyons and
Vienne, 141.

VI. The firft Epifile of St. Paul to
the Corinthians

IS confidered as genuine by, 1. Cle-
ment of Rome, 51; 2. Polycarp, 80; 3.
Tatian, 137; 4.Ireneus, 111; 5. Athe-
nagoras, 119; 6. Clement of Alex-
andria, 125; 7. Tertullian, 132; 8.
‘Caius, 150; 9. Origen, 155; and by
all the Ancients found in Eufebius,
XGO) vis

To the clafs of probable witneffes
belongs Ignatius, 78.

VII. The Second Epifile of St. Paul
to the Corinthians

HAS the exprefs teftimony of Ire-
neus, 111; Clement of “Alexandria,
1255

the New Teftament. 197
195; ‘Tertullian, 132; Caius, 150;
Origen, 155; and of all the eccle-

fiaftical fathers:‘to whom: Eufebius ap-
peals, 169. |

VIII. The Epiftle of St. Paul t0 the
Galatians ?

_ TS declared to be authentic by hy
~ meeus, 111; Clement of Alexandria,
125; ‘Tertullian, 132; «Caius, » 150;
Origen, 155; and by all the Ancients
found in Eufebius, 169.

IX. The Epiftle of St. Paul to the
Eiphefe ans

HAS the teftimony. of Ignatius, .71;
Polycarp, 81; Trenrus, 111; “Clement
of Alexandria, 195; “Tertullian, 132; ;
Caius, 150; Origen, 155; and of all.
othe primitive writers found ,in Eufe-
bius, 169, | |

w@ X. The

180 The Authenticity of

X. The Epifile of St. Paul to the —
Philippians
HAS the evidence of Polycarp, 79:
Ireneus, 111; Clement of Alexandria,
125; Tertullian, 132; Caius, 150; -
Origen, 155; and of all the Ancients
noticed by Eufebius, 169.
And alfo, as appears probable, of
the Communities at Lyons and Vi-
enne, 141.

XI. The Epiftle of St. Paul to the
Colofians

IS attefted by Ireneus, 111; Cle-

ment of Alexandria, 125; Tertullian,

132; Caius, 150; Origen, 155; and

by all the ecclefiaftical fathers con-
fulted by Eufebius, 169. .

XII. The Firft Epifile of St. Paul to
the Theffalonians id

IS exprefsly pronounced by Ire-

neus, 111; Clement of Alexandria, 125;
Tertullian,

the New Teftament. 181

Tertullian, 132; Caius, 150; Origen, -

. 155; and by all the Ancients men-:
tioned by Eufebius, 169 ;

Probably alfo by. Polycarp, 78:

XIII. The Second Epifile of St. Paul
to the Theffalonians, .

by Ireneeus, 111; Clement of Alex-
andria, 125; Tertullian, 132; Caius,
150; Origen, 155; and by all the An-
cients found in Eufebius, 169 ;
Perhaps by Polycarp, 78:

XIV, The Firfi Epijile of St. Paut
| to Timothy,

by Irenzus, 111; Theophilus of An-
tioch, 123; Clement of : Alexandria,
125; Tertullian, 132; Caius, 150;
Origen, 155; and by all the primitive
writers noticed by Eufebius, 169 ;

And, with fome degree of proba-
bility, by Polycarp, 82:

yw 3 XV. The

>

182 The Authenticity of

XV. The Second Epifle of St. Paul to
Timothy, |
by Irenzus, 111; Clement of Alex-
andria, 125; Tertullian, 132; Caius,
150; Origen, 155; and by all the Fa-
thers found in Eufebius, 169:

XVI. The Epifile of St. Paul to Titus,

by Ireneus, 111; Clement of
Alexandria, 125; Tertullian, 132;
Caius, 150; Origen, 155; and by
all the Ancients mentioned by Eufe-

bius, 169—to be genuine works of this
_Apoftle.

XVIL The Epifile of St: Paul to
Philemon

IS but rarely mentioned by the ec-
clefiaftical fathers in their writings, on
account of its brevity and peculiar
contents. Neverthelefs, Irenzus, 109;
Caius, 150; Origen, 155; and all the

Ancients

the New Teftament. 183

Ancients cited by Eufebius, 169; have
pronounced it authentic.

Which is alfo teftified, Spparcety,
by Tertullian, 128. |

XVIH. Zhe Firft Epifile of St. Peter

IS attefted by Papias, 87; Ireneus,
112; Clement of Alexandria, 125;
Tertullian, 132; Origen, 155; and by.
all the Ancients found in eats
169. ‘

To thefe may be added, perhaps Po-
lycarp, 82. |

XIX. The Second Epifile of St. Peter
HAS the evidence of Origen, 155,
who neverthelefs {peaks in fome de-
gree doubtfully; and-of the greater
part of the Ancients confulted en Eu-
febius, 170%.
z See Lardner’s Supplement, vol. iii. p. a15—_224-

aft ed. and Michaelis’ Intraduétion to the N. T. vol. iv.
p- 346——355, of the learned Mr. Marth’s tranflation.

N 4 XX. The

184 The Authenticity of

XX. The Firft Epifile of St. John

IS declared genuine by Papias, 87 ;
Trenzus, 112; Clement of Alexandria,
125; Tertullian, 132; Origen, 155;
and by all the Ancients found in Eu-
febius, 169.

XXII XXIL The Second and Third
Epifiles of St. John.

ORIGEN, 155; and many of the
Ancients, 169, doubted of the authen-
ticity of the fecond and third Epiftles
of St. John. But the majority of
woices, 170, pronounced them genuine
works of this Apoftle *.

XXIII. The Epifile of St. Paul to the
Hebrews

| HAS the exprefs teftimony of Cle-
ment of Alexandria, 125; Tertullian,

® For the three Epiftles of St. John, fee Lardner’s
Supplement, vol, iii: p. 263—267. aft edit. And for
the two laft, Michaelis’ Introduc. to the N. T. vol. iv.

P+ 442445, of Mr. Marth’s tranflation. 3
132;

the New Teftament. 185

132; and of all the primitive writers,
noticed by Eufebius, 169.

To thefe may be added Clement of
Rome, 51; and Juftin Martyr, 101,

XXIV. The Epifile of St. James

_IS attefted by the major part of the
Ancients whom Eufebius quotes 170;
to which the concordant teftimony of
_ the old Syriac Verfion adds confidera-

ble weight’. a

XXV. The Epifile of St. Jude

IS afferted to be genuine by Clement
of Alexandria, 125; Tertullian 132:
Origen, 155; and by the greater part
of the Ancients’ noticed by Eufe-
bius, 170°.

» See Michaelis’ Introduc. to the N. T. vol. iv.
p- 308—-314. of Mr. Marth’s tranflation ; and Lard-
ner’s Supp. vol. iii. p, 85-91. 1ft edit.

© Compare. Lardner’s Supplement, vol. iii. p. 327
—384. with Michaelis’ Introduc. vol. iv. p. 374~—395.
of Mr. Marth’s tranflation.

CHAP.

186 The Authenticity of

CHAP. V.
Of the Revelation of St. John.

THE Revelation of St. John, as it
is called, is fo much diftinguifhed from
all the other writings of the New Tef-

tament, both by its contents and ftyle, -
that we muft feparate it from them,
and inveftigate its authenticity in a
particular inquiry.

SECT dia:

The Contents of this Book.

THE whole book is entirely oecu-
pied with the defcription of three vi-
fions which were fhewn to the author.
Firft; there appears to him, whilft in
a trance (eysvoynv ev wvevnars)® One,
in human form, furrounded with feyen

@ Chap. i. 10, Comp. chap. iv. 2,
candlefticks,

the New Tefiament. £87

candlefticks, clad: im along robe, and
girt with a. golden girdle; his head and

. hair were white as wool, or as fnow,

and his eyes like flames of fire ; his
feet like molten metal, and his voice
like the noife of a rapid torrent; in his
right hand he held feven ftars, from
his mouth went a fharp two-edged
fword, and. his countenance fhone like -
the fun in its meridian fplendor. This
Being di€tates to him Epiftles to the _
prefidents of the feven Chriftian com-
munities in Afia. ‘Thefe feven epif-
tles contain many forcible exhortations
to zeal in virtue or brotherly-love, and
_ powerful confolations, efpecially for the
martyrs to this virtue. But -they are
compofed almoft entirely from paf-
fages of the Old Teftament and the
Gofpels.
Afterwards, (fecond vifion)* the
‘author falls into another trance; and
fees the Almighty on a majeftic throne,

© Chap. iv—xix.

holding

188 The Authenticity of

ho#ling in his hands a book with feven
feals; and Chrift, in the form of a
Lamb with feven horns and feven
eyes, who is alone capable of taking
this book from the hands of God, and
of- opening its feals‘.—He opens the
.. firft feal, and the Conqueror appears ® :
he opens the fecond, and War comes
on the earth®: the third, and Fa-
mine difplays itfelf*: the fourth is
opened, and immediately come forth
Death and the Grave*. After open-
ing the fifth feal, thofe who had been
innocently flain call for revenge!:
when the fixth is opened, frightful ap-
pearances are feen, and all things
tremble™. But thefe plagues are only
the forerunners of the terrible cala-
mity which fucceeds on the opening
of the feventh feal. Wherefore, be-

f Chap. iv. v. k Chap. vi. 7, 8.

g Chap. vi. 1, 2. ! Chap. vi. 9, 10.
h Chap. vi. 3, 4: m Chap. vi. 12——37-
3 Chap. vie 5, 6.

fore

the New Teftament. 189 —

fore this circumftance takes place, the
‘fervants of God, who are deftined to
efcape this dreadful calamity, are
marked by an angel on the forehead ;
an hundred and forty-four thoufand,
twelve thoufand from each of the
twelve tribes of Ifrael. The writer
now beheld an innumerable multitude
out of évery nation ftanding before
- the throne and the Lamb, in white
garments, with palms in their hands,
‘and crying with a loud voice, “ Sal-
vation to our God who fitteth on the
throne! and unto the Lamb!” Thefe
“were come out of great tribulation,
and had wafhed and purified their
garments in the blood of the Lamb.
Therefore they ftand before the throne
of God, ferve him’ day and night in
his temple, and He who fitteth on the
throne covereth them as with a pavil-
lion; they no more hunger nor thirft ;
neither the fun nor any other heat in-
commodes them; they are paftured by

190 The Authenticity of

the Lamb, who conduéts ‘them ‘to ‘the
fountains of Jife, and God wipes away
all tears:from their ‘eyes. After ‘this
Epifode* follows—the opening | ot the
feventhfeal. ‘And,'lo! |
‘Seven ‘angels with feven trumpets
appear®. |The fighs of the. faints -re-
found before the sthrone:of }God; ‘im-
mediately thefe feven angels -make
themfelves ready. ‘The sfirft founds ;
and inftantly:hail and fire mixed with
blood, fall on “the searth. The other
angels found {ucceflively ;—~and a great
mountain as it were burning with fire
is caft.into ‘the -fea, the third -part of
the fea becomes ‘bitter, and .a third
part. of the creatures ‘therein «die: :a.
fiar, named Wormwood, falls from
heaven’: the third: part of the fun, (of
the moon, and of) the ‘ftars is dark-
ened‘::a ftar falls ‘from heaven, and
to him is given the. key of the:bottom-

_ © Chap. vii. P Chap, viii. x0, 11.
© Chap, vili—xiv. 4 Chap. viii. 12.

lefs

the New Teftament. 491

lefs .pit, which ;he» opens’;, the four
angels, which were bound by the river:
| Euphrates, are: loofed*:..a woman,
clothed with the fun, and. having the
moon under her feet, is in travail, and
ds delivered; &c.—At laft the feventh
trumpet founds; and now ‘are made
various great and terrible preparations
(in the long epifode, Chap. x—xiv).
An-angel commands St. John to write
‘down every thing he beheld; another
gives him a book to fwallow, &c. <A
woman an particular appears, clothed
‘with the fun, ‘and having the moon
‘under ‘her feet, and upon her ‘head a
crown-of twelve fiars. She is in-tra-
‘vail. And, behold! a great red dra-
‘gon, ‘with feven heads and:ten horns, |
‘and -feven crowns upon. his heads;
‘whofe ‘tail'drew away the third ‘part of |
‘the ftars of heaven, and caft them on
the earth. It placed itfelf before the
woman in order to devour her child.

* Chap. ix; 2, * Chap. ix. 14.
ite But

5

19¢ The Authenticity of

- But fhe brought forth a fon who was
‘to rule all nations with a rod of iron.
The woman then fled into the wilder-
nefs. But in heaven commences a
war. Michael and his angels fought
againft the dragon, who is Satan, and
his angels. Michael conquers, and
the dragon is caft on the earth. Now
two frightful beafis arofe againft the
woman, her fon; and their followers.
The firft, éxtremely hideous, was like a
leopard, his feet were as the feet of a
bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a
lion. The other had two horns as of
‘alamb; his number was fix hundred
three fcore and fix, &c. Afterwards
the author faw a white cloud, . and
upon it fat He, in human form‘, with
a golden crown on his head, and a
fharp fickle in his hand’. There arifes
a great commotion in heaven. And
then appear

t See above, p. 186.
" Chap. xiv. 14, and following verfes.
Seven

‘

the New Teftament. 193
~ Seven angels with feven vials full ‘of
the wrath of God”, which are poured.
Gut fucceffively; almdft in the fame
thahner and with the fame effeéts as
happened beforé, when the feven trum-
pets were founded. After all the feven
had béeh poured out, there appeared
a4 woitdn, fitting oh a beaft; clothed
ii purple dtd fearlet, and adorned —
with gold, précious ftones, and pearls}
in her hand fhe held a golden cup full
Of abominations, and the filthine(S of
fiét fornications; and upon her fore-
héad was her namie this written, ‘Myf
‘ tery! Babylon the Great, the mother
‘ of Harlots, and abominations of thé
‘earth!’ Babylon the Great is de-
firoyed; on which event heaven ré-
founds with fongs of praife. And now ~
He, who with his heavenly armies had
- cauiféd the deftrdétion of Babylon, re-
turns to heaven.—This {eGtion is aloft
entirely compofed of images and ex-

w Chap. xve—xix.
Q prefiions

194 The Authenticity of

preffions from Ifaiah, Jeremiah, Eze--
kiel, and Daniel. |

Again (third vifion*), an asiel came
down from heaven, who had the key
of the bottomlefs pit, and a great chain.
He laid hold on the dragon, who is
Satan, and bound him. Thus bound,
he caft him into the bottomlefs pit,
where he was to remain a thoufand
years; and after. that be loofed again
for a fhort time. Thrones appear;
and.they to whom a power of judg-
ment is committed, feated themfelves
thereon. The fouls of thofe who had
been flain on account of. the doétrine
of Jefus revived, and ruled with Chrift
a thoufand years, . But the: reft of the
dead did not live again: until the thou-
fand-years had expired. ‘This was the
firft-refurre€ttion. After the expira-
tion of ‘the thoufand years, Satan. will
be loofed. from. his .imprifonment, and

x Chap. xxweend of the book.
feduce

the New T eftament. 195.

feduce the nations which are in the four
ends of. the earth.—Then he beheld a
“white throne, and He fat thereon from
-whofe look. earth and heaven fled.
‘The dead, great and fmall, ftand before
the throne; books are opened, ac-
cording to which they are to be judged. |
‘One book, in: particular, is opened ’,
‘the book of life; and whoever was not
‘found written therein was caft into the
Jake of fire, together with Death and
the Grave.—-Now appeared to him a
‘new: heaven, and a new earth. And
‘he beheld 'the holy city, the new Jeru-
falem, come down out of heaven from
‘God: its wall-was of jafper; the. city
itfelf,, pure gold; each of its twelve.
foundations was a precious ftone, jaf+
per, fapphire, &c.; each ‘of its twelve
gates a pearl *; and the ftreets of gold.

y Chap. xx. 12, and following verfes,

% 6 Mapy&psrng means in the Chaldee not only a
pearl, but likewife a precious fone; {ee Buxtorf lex.
talmud. in v., But-here it is exprefsly diftinguifhed
from the precious ftones, ay sys, chap. xxi. 21%
comp. Ver. 19, 20.

° 2 But

196 Ihe Authenticity of

But no temple was there; for God and
the Lamb are its temple*~—The
groundwork of the imagery here alfo
is taken chiefly from Laiah and Eze-
-kiel; but the poetical drefs in which it
is clad, the precious ftones, pearls, &c.
is the author’s own produétion.

The book concludes with this af-
fertion, “I teftify unto every man that
heareth the words of the prophecy of
this book, If any man fhall add unto
thefe things, God fhall add unto him
the plagues that are written in this
-book : and if any man fhall take away
from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God fhall. take away his
part out of. the book of life, and out
of the holy city, and from the. things
which are written in this book, He
which teftifieth thefe.things faith, Surely
I come quickly. Amen. Even fo,
Come Lord Jefus.”

' a Chap. xxi. 22, and following verfes.

SECT.

the New Tefament. ¥o7

SECT. II.

The Interpretation of the Book of
| Revelation.

NEVER. did a book exift on whofe
contents fuch different opinions have
been formed. In the earlier times of .
Chriftianity, when its followers were
perfecuted by the Roman Emperours,
the Revelation was confidered as a
prophecy of the fpeedy deftruétion of
Gentile Rome. Treneus” thought
that the number ‘ fix hundred three
feore and. fix.*’ indicated AATEINOX,
How it was underftood after Chrif-
tianity itfelf had afcended the impe-
rial, throne in. the perfon. of Conftan-.
tine; is unknown. But when the Ro-
mifh Bifhops had ereéted the horrid’

» Adverf. hzrefs v. 26% | 306
© See-above, pi 192.

0 3 fyfter

toe The Authenticity of |
fyftem of papal tyranny’, and_ tor

mented and murdered all that oppofed
it,

d In the fixth century the bithops of Rome made
pretenfions to the fovereignty over the whole world, as
a right beftowed upon them by God, from being, as
they afferted, the fucceflors of St. Peter,’ and the vicars
of Chrift, In the eighth, from the grants of Pepin
and Charlemagne, they became temporal lords. In the
ninth, they placed themfelves on an equality with
princes and emperours, and in fome cafes claimed the
fuperiority ; now it was that they publifhed, if they
did not forge, the Decretales, and Donatio Conftantini
Magni. The eleventh century brought this infamous
ufurpation to its maturity. Hildebrand, a black{mith’s
fon, who, on being raifed to the papal fee, took the
name of Gregory the Seventh, fummoned the em-
perour Henry the Fourth to appear at Rome under the
penalty of ecclefiaftical cenfures ; and on his not ap-
pearing, pronounced him excommunicated, and. re-
Jeafed all his fubjeé&ts from their oath of fidelity,
The emperour was at length obliged to comply ; but
was not received again into the pale of the Church
until he had ftood barefoot and without nourifhment
during three days in the caftle of Canoffa, where the
pope then refided, and had humbly prayed for favour.
Laftly, fince the thirteenth century, they exercifed
fovereign authority over all the monarchs of the Weft ;
pope Innocent the Third depofed the emperour Otta
the Fourth, and eompelled John, king of England, to

mak

the New Tefiament. 199

it, Joachim, an abbot in Calabria,
during the thirteenth century, pointed
the book againft the Pope. The Fran-
cifcans, on being oppreffed by the
papal fee, followed him. Many of the
Proteftants. eagerly embraced this opi-
-mion: and fince that time it is become
the ruling fentiment among this clafs
of Chriftians. On the other hand, the ©
Romifh church has retaliated, and dif-
covered in it Luther, Calvin, or fome
one or other of the reformers: nor
have there been wanting men, who
have fancied that they perceived. al-
lufions even to Mahomet.’ Innumera-
ble are the individual interpretations
which have been given in modern
‘times. The afflicted Proteftants in
Hungary and Bohemia, during the per-
fecutions which were excited againtt ,
them in the feventeenth century, per-

make his kingdom tributary to the Romifh fee. See
Mornei Myfterium Iniquitatis ; and Cyprian, Hiftory
of Popery.
| oO 4 ceived

200 Lhe Authenticity of

ceived many. prophecies therein which
afforded them much confolation. Some
imagine it to be .a perfet hiftory of
the Chriftian church, from its, com-
mencement even to the, end of the
world.—Many learned men, and among
thefe Luther and Calvin, have, never
attempted an expofition, becaufe, they
confidered it a fruitlefs labour. Others,
laftly, (Wetftein a and D’Aubitz i In pars
ticular) have explained it as indicating
the defiruétion of the Jewith ftate and
divine-fervice, Aud if any. interpre>
tation has the flighteft degree of ‘light
ane prebability, itis this *,

SECT,

© wilh here. prefent, the reader with the heads of
this interpretation ;—1. Chridekes the book. with feven
feals from the hand of God, chap, iv. v3 ie. hei is com,
miffioned by God to deftroy the ftate and divine worfhip
of the Jews. 2, Sewen angels fuccefiruely found their. trum
pets, chap. viii—xiv. ; i.e. terrible events precede the
deftruction. 3. Seven vials filled with, the wrathof God
are poured. out by, feyen, angels, chap. XV:--XiX. is Ce
that utter deftruétion is now carried into execution,
4. Chriff

the New. Tefiament. 2201

SECT, III.

Remarks on. its: Contents.

1. IT ftands perfectly infulated in
the bible.—Even from the flighteft pe-
rufal, it will clearly appear, that this
book is entirely different from all the
other writings not only of the New
Teftament, but alfo of the Old. In
the other books of the New Teftament
hiftorical matters and do€trines are

4. Chrift comes again; the dead are, naifed, Ge. chap.
XX.—-xxii. i, e. after the coming of Chrift to, hold.
judgment on Jerufalem, he will appear again in Jue time
to judge the whole world.—In examining this poetical
book, we muft be governed by the fame rules as we
adopt when we endeavour, to- explain the work, of any.
other poet—we muft attribute, a diftin@ meaning,
only to the principal images, and confider all the other
feparate. features of the different. mages as merely:
poetical ornament and amplification. Agreeably, to
this, book, feal, feven feals, trumpets, feven trum~
pets, &c. have in themfelves no particular meaning,
but are all nothing. more. than, the:poetical drefs of the
principal images.

delivered

202 The Authenticity of

delivered in the common language of
men: there exifts nothing of divine
revelations {hewn in a trance through
figures, except in the paffage of the
Aéts of the Apoftles, x. 3—7; and
even here the explanation is immedi-
ately fubjoined’. The Prophets of the
Old Teftament indeed have delivered
their doétrines. frequently in vifions ;
their writings often contain thofe of a
fimilar nature. But entire and mere
vifion like this, without any fubjoined
explanation, exifts in no book what-
ever of the bible, except in the Apo-
calypfe. |

9. The author is a perfon called
John; but whether the Apofile of that
name or not, he does not inform us.—
The writer calls himfelf repeatedly
John, not only in the preface of ‘the
book®, but frequently alfo in -other

f In the 8th and following verfes.
s Chap, i, i, | :
places

the New Teftament. 203

places" where it might have been by
no means expected. He profeffes
himfelf a fervant of Jefus Chrift*, and
a teacher of his religion*; and afferts
that he had been on the ifland of
Patmos on account of the confeffion
of the doétrine of Jefus'’. But whe-
ther to preach it there, or banifhed for
having preached it, he does not: dif-
clofe. And here, in a trance, he faw
thefe vifions. But he never fuffers
even a fingle word to efcape him by
which we might be enabled to difcover
that he was the Apoftle of the fame
name. He never, like the Evangelift,
calls himfelf ‘ the difciple whom Jefus
loved, who leaned on his bofom at .
fupper™.’ Not a trace of the Apof-_
tle’s favourite figures’ and expreffions,

h Chap. i. 4.9. xxii. s,
4 Chap. i. 4.

k Chap. i. a.

1 Chap. ii. 9.

™ For inftance, John xiii,

Light,

204 The Authenticity of

Light, Life, &c. is to be found here.
——On the contrary, the frequent men-
tion, of his. name is at perfect variance
with; the; cuftom of the Apoftle, who
neyer names himfelf either in his
Gofpel or. Epifiles.

3,.. The. book. contains many fine. paf-
fages,—N otwithftanding its impenetra-
ble obfcurity,, we meet with fome noble
paffages, diftinguifhed both for their
matter and. compofition. Befides what
has been faid above concerning the
feven. epiftles.to. the. Chriftian commu-
nities, we may. add, that, however ig-
norant we. are to what the deftruétion in
chap, vi. 12—17: alludes,. the, painting,
is very fublime. Animated and_affect-
ing. is, the: defcription. of. the blifs_ of
the heroic workers. of virtue, chap. vii.
9—17: and majeftic is the account
of the redemption of the. human race
through Jefus, chap. xii. 7—)2.

4, It is inexplicable, at leaft at pre-

fent.—Of what. it. treats; whether it
Z he

«the New Teftament. 205

be-a narration or a prophecy; whether
it relate to near circumftances, or
remote; whether it confift of one
whole, or of many unconneéted parts;
whether all of it, or nothing be al
ready fulfilled; what may be the mean-
ing of the myfterious numbers, ‘a
time, and times, and half a time*’; of
the fignificant number, ‘fix hundred,
three feore and fix®;’ the thoufand
years’, &e.; of the frightful beafts and
monfters‘’; in a word, of the entire
contents—is moft indeterminate and
obfcure. After the inquiries and af-
fertions of many centuries, we can af-
certain of its meaning — abfolutely
nothing. We become confufed and
difgufted when we dive into expofitions
fo numerous, various, and contradic-
tory. And the Revelation, after all
that the learned and unlearned, fa-
m Chap. xii. 14.
® Cap. xiii. 13.

P Chap.’ xx. 4, and followtag verfes.
@ See above, p. 192.

natics,

206 The Authenticity of

natics and men of found underftand-
ing, have faid and dreamt concerning
it, ftill remains—a fealed book. This
is the opinion of all, who, from modeft
diftruft of their own penetration, have
confulted, I will not fay all the inter-
preters of this book—for that is ab-
folutely impoffible—but even a mode-
rate part of them. The late profeffor
Brucker, for inftance, fays in one of
his works, ‘ that he had read a very con-
fiderable number of the expofitors of
this figurative and myftical book, and
found -incredible, contradictions and
confufion.’

5. Many things in it appear to be
erroneous and. unchriftian.—For how
fhall we harmonize that joy and _ tri-
umph with which the horrid punifh-
ment of their enemies was viewed and
publifhed by the faints, with the mild,
conciliatory, charitable, and enemy-
loving fpirit, which exifts in the whole
New Teftament, and particularly in

the

the New Teftament. - 207

the writings of St. John, which breathe,
as it were, nothing but forgivenefs and
benevolence?—Again, the writer of
this book offers at two different times
to adore an angel, in the moft. exa&
fenfe of the word, to adore as God.
And that not only in the vifion’, but
alfo* in the ufual, natural condition of
the mind. It is highly improbable .
that any thing of this kind would be
done by a Jew, and yet more impro-
bable by a Chriftian, but abfolutely
impoffible by an Apoftle, nay, by. him,
who was the moft intimate friend of
Jefus!—We will pafs over the error,
as it appears to. be, which is met
with, chap. xx. 8, where the town
or kingdom Magog‘, (from Ezekiel
xxxviii. 2,) is fuppofed to be a man;
becaufe critics are {till in doubt as to

r Chap. xix. 9, 10.

8 Chap. xxii. 8, 9.

t Magog, acity, or. akingdom; Gog, the prince
ef Magog.

the.

208 The Authenticity of

che tight intetprétation of this paffape
of Ezekiel.—-Alfo, itt judping of this
book, we cannot with propriety fay
any thing of its humerous grammatical
érrors, fice Our prefent text is ex-
tremely defeGtivée. And to this fubjeét
T will now proceéd. 7

bECT.. YV.25!
Of our common text of the Revelation,

OF this book, when compared with
the other fcriptures of the New Tef-
famént, very few nianufcripts and an-
‘ciént verfions, and a véry {mall number
of extracts in the works of the ancient
teachers, arecomé down to us. About
four manufcripts only have any value;
the reft are new and worthlefs. Of
thefe four there are but two complete.
Until the time of Wetftein, threé ma-
nufcripts dloné had betn collated; and
fince him very few, collated with ac-

6 curacy,

the New Tefament. 209°
curacy, have been added to the num-
ber. Erafmus, who could make ufe of
one Greek manufcript only, tranflated
the greater part of it from: the: ‘Vul--
gate; he even made many alterations —
purely, conje&tural.. From this edition
of Exafmus, .our common text of the
Revelation of; St, John is- for the moft)
part),a.copy:: Deftitute. therefore. of;
credible; manufcripts, verfions, and
other), writings, of . high antiquity,-
amidft a multitade of omiflions, tranf=
pofitions, additions, and alterations;
we cannot fettle. the. genuine reading.
The ‘text’ of this: book is confequently'
oe even in the beft editions’. >

& See the Editions of the New Teftament by Wet-
ftein and Griefbach; and Semler’s Theologifche Her-
menéutike ; EV. ate. : :

P ' SECT.

210 The Authenticity of

"SECT. Vv.
ae oe re
The Opinion of Ancient Willies on
this Book. a

ery |

“THE fcarcity of critical aid, and; ‘a’
neceflary confequence, the uncertainty’
of the text, will not aftonifh ‘us, if we
revert to antiquity, and inquire what
Opinion’ the ancients had of the Re-
velation..» In the two firft centuries
this: book was rejected by Chriftian
teachers of great refpeétability. Pa-
plas”,: even if he had not been, as
Ireneus has afferted, a difciple of St.
John himfelf, was certainly a contem-'
porary of this Apoftle, and indeed
Bithop of Hierapolis, a town in the
vicinity of Ephefus, the place of re-.
fidence of the Apoftle, and of the
feven Afiatic communities to which
the Apocalypfe contains epiftles. Now

Y See above, p. 84. ;
this

the New Teftament. 911

this Father, whofe evidence would be
of fuch great importance in the pre-
fent inquiry, has not mentioned the
Revelation: for Eufebius quotes no-
thing from him*, which he certainly
would not have omitted, had he been
able, he himfelf being perfeétly in
doubt as to its authenticity. Indeed Pa-
pias overlooks in his works fome other —
books of the New Teftament. But he
had not fo much reafon to notice other
books as this, fince he was the father
of the doétrine of the Millennium (the
opinion that Chrift would reign upon
earth a thoufand years after the ‘re-
furreétion of the righteous), which
doétrine has always been grounded by
all its fupporters on the Apocalypfe.
Eufebius even fays’, “ That Papias
was deluded into the opinion of a
Millennium from an uncertain tradi-
tion, and by mifunderftanding the apof-

= See above, p. 85. y Hitt. Eccl. iii. 39.
PQ — tolical

212 The Authenticity of

tolical, narrations,” (dinyncas, confes,
quently notapoftolical writings), There-.
fore he—either did. not know of the,
Apocalypfe;—or did not receive it ag
an apoftolical and divine fcripture 7 aiid

_ Caius*, an orthodox, and very learned,
prefbyter of the; church of Rome,.in,
the fecgnd century,,.aflerted even, that
-Cerinthus,” inorder to . eftablith, the.
coarfe doétrine of the, Millennium, had;
falfely attributed it to the Apoftle St.
John. “ Caius in his Difputation fays,””
(thefe are the words,of Eufebius, E. H.
IL. 28, for of the writings of Caius
none.are now extant). ‘*Cerinthus, by
at male of revelations ‘Wbich he “ai

X 2 This i is sseahiuiedias by Dr. glee a wery hed
and acute defender of the authenticity and diyinity of
this book, in his ‘New Apology for the Revelation
of St.John,’ p. 176 of the Original.—The teftimony
of Andrews Bifhop of Czefarea, in the. fixth century,
of whom we know little or nothing, cannot be pro-
duced as‘a proof in oppofition to Eufebius; it is
moreover obfcure. See Dr, Storr, p. 175.

® gderisbaver: Pr T5Cy | 2

lod 7 | Gsnisied

the New Teftament.- 215
finuated to have been’ written’ by ‘a
great Apofile *, ~ impofes- upon “Us a
variety of wonderful relations, which
he pretends were fhewn to him. by
angels e ‘and afferts, that after the re-
furreGtion, Chrift’s palace fhall be on
‘earth’, and that the flefh (men. with
earnal bodies) fhall dwell again at Je-
rufalem, and indulge in pleafures and
fenfual appetites. This enemy of the
divine fcriptures fays’alfo, in order to
deceive, (Qedrwy ramvav) that’a Bie
years fhall be fpent in ‘nuptial’ feafts ©.
+The great Apoftle,. by whom the
revelations are pretended to have been

<b AW aqoxaAvilear. wg) bare AtoroAy’ payne ye*
YR LEV» Dionyfius of Alexandria alfo calls the
book weroxaarvipes, in the plural. Eulebii Hiftor.
Ecclef. VIL. 25. p..354. edit. Reading.»
. S Tegaroroyiag tun, ws oF Ayytioy evry der
Desrypeevees. Pevdouere-. :

@ The words in the original are, ro Be einelass an
not trav BaciAeixy 3 it muft not therefore be rendered,
as is done by the Latin tranflator, régnum Chrifti.
The palace of Chrift is the New Jerufalem, chap. xx.

¢ eealner NiAvovroetncs ev yaw togrns yweobare

P3 written ; :

a4 The Authenticity of

written; the wonderful things fhewn
to him by angels; the palace of Chritt
on earth, after the refurreétion, at Je-
rufalem; the marriage feafts; and the
dominion which is to endure for a
thoufand years, are vifibly taken from
the Apocalypfe. One of the moft elo-
quent defenders of its authenticity con-
feffes himfelf, that Caius {peaks of this
book, and not of any other work, as
that which Cerinthus had written under
the title, omoxaraubas’. This becomes
ftill more certain, as Dionyfius of Alex-
andria exprefsly fays*, that fome of
the ancients had attributed the book
to Cerinthus. |

It is this Dionyfius who excites in
every refleGling and impartial reader
the greateft doubt concerning the au-
thenticity of the Apocalypfe. He was
born at Alexandria, of Gentile pa-

~ £ See Dr. Storr, New Apology for the Revelation of
St. John.

& Eufebius, H, E, VII. zs.
rents,

-
>

the New Teftament. - 215

rents, his extenfive reading led him to
Chriftianity, he became the difciple of
Origen, then a prefbyter, and laftly,
about the year 248, Bifhop of the
Chriftian community in his native city.
His deep penetration and great know-
ledge of the world, united with the
moft amiable charaéter, placed him in
a condition to do what no one ever
has done either before or after him.
He held a religious controverfy with
the followers of Nepos (an Egyptian
Bifhop then lately deceafed, who had
taught the Millennarian doétrine),
which not only produced no bad con-
fequences, but, on the contrary, con-
vinced his opponents, and inclined
them to abandon their error*. It is
evident from his. writings, of which,
except two, only fragments preferved -
in Eufebius are come down to us,
and from his life which the fame hif-

h Eufebius Hitt. Ecclef. VIT. 24.
P A torian

216, Lhe Authenticity of

torian relates’, that he was a man of
diftinguifhed talents, very extenfive
learning, found judgment, and what
is of the greateft importance, of
moft excellent character. His amiable
modetfty and meeknefs in particular -
won the hearts of all who knew him
intimately ; his learning and penetra-
tion, united with a fine eloquence,
gave him fuch confequence, that it
was | cuftomary to choofe him.umpire
in almoft all difputes ; and by pofterity
he has been. named the Great Dio-
nyfius. — Againft the fore-mentioned
Nepos (who underftood the paffages
concerning the coming of Chrif, efpe-
cially thofe in the Apocalypfe, literally;
and in a particular book which he
wrate, ‘A Confutation of the Alle-
: gorifts’ cAty x05 aAAnLOYIS wy, founded on
this hypothefis the coarfe doétrine of
the Millennium), he compofed a

i Hift. Ecclef. VI, 29. 35. 40. 42—44. 46. VII.
1.411, 20——28,

5 work,

the New Teftament.

work, ‘ Concerning the promifes,’ Tepe

smoryleArwy, in two books. . In the. fe-
cond, he treats at large of the Apoca-
lypfe... The extraéts which Eufebius*
gives from it, are worthy of being in-
troduced here, for they contain not
only much important information and
found criticifm on the Revelation;
but afford us alfo a good idea of the
learning and mode of thinking of its
author, and of the, care with which
the primitive Chriftians were accuf-
tomed to fcrutinize the writings which
made any pretenfions to be apoftolical.
“* Some of the Ancients” (fays Diony-
fius) ‘* have entirely rejeCted this
“ book; refuted it feétion by fettion;
** fhewing it to be throughout unin- —
‘ telligible and inconfiftent. They ai-
“ fert alfo, that the title is falfe, fince
*‘ this is neither a work of St. John,
*‘ nor even a Revelation Spermaney't),

* Hitt. Ecclef, vit. 25e
* becaufe

218 The Authenticity of
“ becaufe évery thing in it is hidden
“© under a coarfe and thick veil. They
“* fuppofe, that not only no ‘Apoftte,
* but no pious member of the church,
“was its author; but afcribe it to_
*" Cerinthus, ‘and the feéts called after
“his name, who were defirous of
*€ giving credit to his errors, by affixing
“to them a refpectable name. For
* from him originated the doétrine,
“* that the kingdom of Chrift: fhould
“ be temporal, confifting ” of thofe
“ things to which he himfelf, a. totally
‘a fenfual and carnal man, was moft
“* addiéted ; viz. the fatiating of the
“belly, and the gratification of flefhly
“'lufts, by eating, drinking, marrying,
“ by feafts and feaft-offerings. But I
“will not venture to reject the book,
**fince many of the brethren highly
* efteem it’; “for I believe that its
‘ | ** contents

4 Dionyfius appeals here, xft, fo the teftimony of
fome of the ancients, gives twv Feo nywr; and 2dly, to
that

the New Teftament. 219

“contents furpafs my comprehenfion,
“ are concealed and wonderful. Al-
“ though I do not underftand it, yet I
* fuppote that the words have a cer-
“tain hidden meaning. I do not
“‘ meafure and judge of it by my own
*< reafon, but follow the faith, and
‘* confider it above my intelle&t. I do
*“ not reject what. I do not compre-
*‘ hend, but admire it the more, be-
' © caufe I do not underftand it™.”
Pn ant After

n

that of many of his cotemporaries, “ many of them,”
fays he, “ highly eftegm it :"’—confequently, not all.
It is difficult therefore to fay, with Dr. Storr, (New
Apology for the Revelation of St. John, p. 50, of the
original), that Dionyfius only difputes and conjec-
tures, but does not-appeal to hiftorical arguments.

m The various turns which the author here takes;
the indeterminate, obfcure affertions, which he makes;
and the exprefs appeal to the brethren, who highly efteem
the Apocalypfe; thew, as it appears to me, clearly, that,
in this place, he delivers, from tendernefs to thofe of
different fentiments, not his whole opinion. ‘ On the
contents of the book he neither could nor would de-
cide, fince he underftood -nothing of it:* this, I be-
Sieve, is the fenfe of this prolix paflage. What, im-

mediately

220 The, Authenticity. of

‘ After. ‘this. (continues. Eufebius) she
examines the. whole. work,. fhews that
according. to. the common, ufe of lan-
guage it is impoflible’ to underftand it
(adwaroy atrny nara suv meonerpoy vosirbat
deanery and then adds, ‘ “* After: having

“ ended what. is. called; ,the prophecy,
the prophet pronounces thofe blefied
“ who. keep it, and alfo. himfelf—
“*. Bleffed is he, who keepeth the fayings
“of the prophecy of this book ; and I
“ John, who faw and heard thefe
“ things. That he therefore was
“ called John, ‘and that, ‘this: Book
“ came from a. certain J ohn, I will not
“deny; F even confets that it was
© written by fome holy. man, and by
/ divine infpivation, YE EbVGb, TIVOS HAE
“ Qeomveuse cuvawe, ”Neverthelefs I'can-
“ not eafily acknowledge, that this
“ John was the. Apofile, the, fon of
“ Zebedee, the brother of James; whole
eseldeeby follows will: tari — us to entertain a

AN ac Fc ay

Me New Fefament: soR
Sopamenis affixed to the Gopper: and
*: Catholic Epifile..\ For TY conclude*
«from ‘the defign and’ ftyle of the°dif-

“> ferent:works; and \from what is called
“the arrangement of the book (ex ‘ens’
“ne PCAs DeeGedluiyes Xeyowevns), that they
‘© were mot from: one’ ‘and the fame
“-perfom For the “Evangelift: never
“introduces his name, or makes tiim-
“ofelfoknown either in’ the Gofpel ior
“cin the! Epiftle*—* In © ‘the: ‘fequel
(adds Eufebius) “he proceeds? in “this
manner, ““' St. John’ no..where fpeaks
“of himéelf, either dire@tly, or'as of a
“s.third perfon.\'On the:contrary, the.
“author of the Apocalypfe places his.
‘‘oname ‘at the very beginning, Zhe
“Revelation ‘of: Jefus' Chrift, which
“‘ God gave unto him, to fhew unto his.
% caibonaiice wage which mufe yroaly

“a Thete pelt peony mt determine the decifion of,
Dionyfius; the former opinions and evidences of an-
tiqnity. having left him in doubt. The rexpoigoucs
EX) X+ ToAry do net entirely exclude hiftorical reafons
allo. -)

wis - a come

22g The Authenticity of

“ec
ce
ce
it 4
¢é
ts
<¢
cé
6c
6é
ce
ft 4
€¢
it 4
iZ3
ce
“ec
“ce
<¢
«ce
fo
«¢
ac

a

come to pafs;, and he fent.and figs .
nified it by his angel unto his fervant
John, who bare record of the word
of God, and of the teftimony of
Jefus Chrifi; and of all things that
he faw. In the epiftle at the com-

‘mencement of this book, he begins,

John to the feven churches which
are in Afia; grace be unto you and
peace. But the Evangelift has not pre-
fixed his name to the catholic Epiftle ;
on the contrary, he begins without cir-
cumlocution, concerning the myftery
of the divine revelation, Zhat which
was from the beginning, which we
have heard, which we have feen with
our eyes, &c. And for the like re-
velation the Lord pronounced Peter
bleffed; faying, Bleffed art thou
Simon, Son of Jonas, for flefh and
blood have not revealed it unto you,
but. my father who is in heaven.
Nor in the fecond or third Epiftles
attributed to him, though indeed they

“ are

ce

‘the. New Teftament, 223

are, fhort epiftles, is, the. name. of
* John prefixed, but only,t the. title of
. the . Elder. But-this other man, (the
author. of the Apocalypfe). was not
contented, with nanung himfelf once;
“but 3 repeats it, often, ;L John, &C. 33
and at,the end he fays, Bleffed is, ke
that , keepeth.the. fayings of the pro-

“« phecy. of .this book ;,,and I, John;

‘é
«6
“
“

$6

ac

¢
«t
66

ae

46

‘who. faw..thefe, things, and heard —
“< “them... Therefore \ that «a. perfon
: named John was. the author of. thig
book ought to be credited. But who

he was 1S uncertain. . For he neither
fays,. agreeably to the’ language of
the Gofpel, that he is thes ilcwne
whom the Lord loved; nor He, who

leaned on his breatt ; nor, The bro-_
| ther. _of James; nor, He who had

himfelf feen and heard the Lord.

$6 Whereas he would have introduced

«c
<6

a“

fome expreflions of this kind, if he
had intended, that we fhould know
who was the writer. But this. is

oes EY a.

294 The Authenticity of
“not the cafe-——Now many writers
called John, Y believe, have ex-
ifted. ——-+~Alfo it is probable
“from the fentiments, and words, and
* their conftruétion, that this man (the
“author of the Apocalypfe) was a
“ different’ perfon from him (the
“ Apoftle). For’ the Gofpel and
* Epiftle have a certain fimilarity ;
“ they begin in the fame manner; the
“former favs, In: the beginning was
the word; and the latter, That which
“ was from the beginning ; the former
“ fays, And the word was made flefh
“and dwelt among us, and we beheld
“his glory, a glory as of the only
“ begotten of the Father ; and the lat-
“ter the very fame, with this trifling
variation, Which we have heard, which
we hace feen, and our hands have
“handled of the word of life. ——
“ Again, we find in both much of
“Life; Light; Avoiding of darknefs ;
7 “ Truths Grace, Joy, the Flefh and the
“* Blood

(14

6¢

the New Tefament. 995

* ‘blogd-of the, Lord; ‘Judgment, For-
4 Ae: (@ivenels of fins, The dove ef God: ito~
‘wards us, The command of love one
towards | another; The neceffity of
**- keeping all the commandments; The
* judoment.of the world, of the Devil,
‘of Antichrift; The promife. of the
“ Holy-Ghoft; The adoption of Gods .
* Unlimitted faith; The Father,and the
‘* Son, -—— But the ftyle of the Apo-
‘* calypfe is very different from this, —
“at is diffimilar in almoft every point.
“* +Further, the Apocalypfe neither
“mentions the Epiftle, nor the Epiftle
«the Apocalypfe.—The Lariguage alfo
‘* of the Gofpél arid Epifile is very
“ different from that of the Apoca-
“ lypfe: For the Greek of the former
“js not ory void of grammatical
‘* errors, but there is an elegance in
“ the expreffions, the argument, and
© contexture of the difeourfe; and we
“ do not difcover either a barbarifm,
‘a folecifm, or even an idiomatical
Q ° “exe

926. Fhe Authenticity of
“ expreffion.—As to the other, he whe
““faw the Apocalypfe, may perhaps
“ have received wifdom and prophecy;
** but the language is not good Greek,
it is°mixed with barbarifms “and
3 fometimes with folecifms.° Thefe I
will not at prefent quote, as it is not
‘my intention to ridicule, but to fhew
“ the diflimilarity of the. writings °.”
~.— Here then we have: moft im:
portant information concerning the
Apocalypfe. A fcholar of. high: anti-
quity, who lived fomewhat more than
a hundred years after the Apoftle:St.
John, and was then in high eftimation
for his knowledge and character ; who
has been in repute with all antiquity,
and continues from the very fragments of
his writings to obtain the refpeét of pof-
terity ;-—this confcientious and learned

“

o ‘This criticifm of the language is fomewhat over-
ftrained. Neither is that of the Gofpel and Epiftle fo
pure, nor that of the Apocalypfe fo corrupt, as Dio-
nyfius has here reprefented it.

y* inquirer
5

the New Teftament. 297

inquirer was induced to doubt. by the
‘ teftimony. of fome. of. the ancients,’
who confidered this book not only as
not. apoftolical, but even as worthlefs
and, erroneous. Notwithftanding, he
would not abfolutely rejeét it, fince
many of his contemporaries continued
to efteem it: on the contrary, he con-.
feffed that it was a holy book, and in-
fpired by God. He acknowledged this
more from refpe& to the fupporters of
the Apocalypfe, than from his own con-
viction; for its contents were to him
obfcure and incomprehenfible. But
thus much he afferted with confidence,
that it was not written by the Apoftle
St. John, but by fome other perfon of
the fame name: for the ftyle and: con-
tents of the book prove it incontro-
vertibly. 3
The father of Chriftian ecclefiaftical

hiftory reprefents the opinion of anti-
guity concerning the Apocalypfe ex-
actly in a fimilar manner, but more

QZ deter

998 = The Authenticity of
detebihidditely and’ cledtly® ” “ Of" the
“ Revelation,” fays he’, © the majority
€ ave even yet” (after all the jniquities
that had been eri’ made)“ ‘fill ih
doubt?” that i they’ reférved” to
eHeiiteted Alt” deaive opinion On
finde théy knew not whetlier'they’ Ahoiild
cOtifider the ‘book as gendine ot tpt
rious." “ Therefre}” fays He* he
«Who choofes, may place tho Apoea:
© Fypfe Aion’ thé Hidimologoumend”
(the veal ‘aékhowlédged). ‘Fot
at that tithe’ the book had’ many Zéalous
fupporters*, who afférted its. authen
ticity to be AesnbOvErabIe Ratebius -
Wold not deptive | thofe' petfohs “of
their ‘opinion, but ‘neverthelets teminds
théin, ‘that it was Contradittory’to! hit
tery; for fome of the’ aiicients’ had
aimee Legace se it “ite fe Sot Te

Bots:

Dp Hit. Ecclef IM. 245/28, and 39. 9 >.
see Nc IT. 24, ps118. Reading.

fi ATE ag. p. T19s

rela 8 above, p. 159

: 7.

n Iwavys

the New Tefiament. —2¢9

¥ Iwave wmonarubis, £6 Qavern, nv Tues we
eony aleracwv, A de nyhoniags Tos oH
Aoyeuevors. ) se

~ Such are the evidences againgt the
authenticity of this book, with which
jts divinity is infeparably conneéed *.
On the other fide, it is fupported by
men of equal confequence. Juftin
Martyr", in the paflage quoted above,
to prove the doétrine of a Millennium,
appeals to the Revelation of St. John
the Apoftle. Ireneus, who lived fo
near the time of the Apoftles, and was
alfo the {cholar of Polycarp who had
heard St. John himfelf”, notonly proves* |
the approaching defiruétion of the

Roman monarchy, the wickednefs of

¢ One of the moft moderate and impartial opponents
of the authenticity of the Revelation of St. John: is
Michaelis, in his Introduétion to the New Teftament.
See the very learned and very accurate Mr, Marfh’s
tranf. vol. iv. p- 461.
"& See above, p+ 103.

w See above, p. 112.

* Adverfi Harel, V. 26—end.

Q 3 ' Antichrift,

230 The Authenticity of

Antichrift, and the doétrine of a Mil-
lennium, from the Apocalypfe, but
alfo exprefsly afferts, that it was written
almoft in his (Irenzus’s) own time, by
St. John the. Apoftle; and appeals
to manufcripts of this book, which
were ancient and might be relied on,
and which he had feen’. ‘Theophilus
of Antioch’, in one of his works now
loft, had refuted erroneous do€trines.
by authorities from the Revelation of
St. John; confequently, he thought it
of divine infpiration. Clement of
Alexandria* likewife places it among
the genuine and divine Scriptures.
Tertullian’, in proof of its divinity,

y We cannot place Melito (fee above, p. 138)
among the evidences, for we only know, that he had
written a book on the Revelation of John. See above,
p- 139. But what the tenor of his book was ; whether
he held this John to be the Apoftle, or fome indifferent
perfon ; or, whether he received or rejeéted the book ;
we know not.

Z See above, 143.

a See above, 125.

d See above, 132.

appeals

the New Teftament. 23

appeals to the evidence. ofthe .com-
munities eftablifhed by the - Apoftles
themfelves. And an authority of the
greateft “weight, Origen‘, the moft
learned of all the Chriftian teachers ;
who had fcrutinized the New Teftament
on true principles of criticifm; and
who was an enemy to the doétrine of a
Millennium,- he places the Revelation
more than once among the writings of
St. John the Apoftle, and among the
divine books of the New Teftament%.
Jerom, the moft learned of the Latin
Fathers, is of the fame opinion. He
ftates* that in his time, the latter part

€ See above, p. 155 f.

@ He appears toaffert even, that not @ /ingle one of
the ancients had doubted ‘its genuinenefs, (See above,
p-.160.,Note !). But among the ancients, and efpe-
cially among the fathers, we muft not expeét perfect
logical precifion ; confequently, we muft not take the
expreflion of Origen in its ftri& fenfe. If this were
aétually his meaning, he was without doubt in an
error, asis proved by the information of Dyonyfius and
Eufebius.

¢ Ep. ad Dardanum.

Q 4 of

‘

232 ‘The Authenticity.of

of the fourth century, the Greek
charch rejeéted indeed this book, which
was received by the Latin; but that he
neverthelefs efteemed it divine, becaufe
he. relied rather on the credit of anti-
quity than on the cuftom of the times.
Now as the Romifh church even then
(and ftill more fince the fixth century),
had beoun to be confidered the oracle
of Chriftians, from that time therefore
until the: Reformation, the divinity of
the. Apocalypfe has fcarcely ever been
farther called in aatiee )

Spf ‘See Sachin ms Supplement pay dil, p. 456—364.
of the firft edition.—As well in refpect of learning, as
alfo of impartiality, the late Chancellor Reufs of Tu-
-bingen, ‘and his fon-in-law, Dr. Storr, are among the
moft confiderable defenders of the Apocalypfe: the
former, in his ‘ Defence of the Revelation of St. John;
in anfwer to the objeétions of Dr. » Semler7“1772,
$vo.; and the latter, in the * New Apology for the
Revelation of St. John,’ Tubingen, 1783, in $v0.—
The hiftory,of the modern controverfies on this fubject
may be feen in Walch’s ‘ Lateft Hittory. of Reli igion,:
Part vii, Pe 257, and following pages of the orie
ginal,

~ nt?

‘ &

SECT,

the New Tefiement: 233

SEO Rue ens
Fhe true Value and Credit of the Book:

‘THE foregoing obfervations on its
eontents and hiftory, lead us. to the
following decifion on the book of Re-
velation;-—It.is undoubtedly very old;
iti was’ known as early asthe beginning
of the fecond century after Chrift.
But,it may be afked, what'led fo many
and creditable men to receive it as an
apofidlical’ and. divine! Sctipture? To
this it may: be: anfwered, thatits author
was called.dohns and this, .as appears
‘probable, was the caufe of its having
been placed by thefe men among the
divine Scriptures of the New Tefta-
ment; they miftook him for the Apoftle ©
of the fame name. Who he was, and
where he lived, we know not: but the
contents of the book clearly evince
that he was a Chriftian teacher and a

TAI pious

234 The Authenticity of

pious man. It contains alfo many
paffages diftinguifhed both for matter
and compofition ; it has always been,
and will always continue to be read by
many with*real advantage, as an ex-
citement to virtue, and as affording
means of confolation. But as we
‘neither underftand ‘its contents, nor
can depend with certainty on the pre-
fent text as genuine, the ufe of it is .
only fo far fafe, as its contents agree
with the other writings of the New
Teftament. Whether, laftly, the book
was written by the dpofile St. John, or
even by any Apofile, cannot be pofi-
tively either afferted or denied.

CHAP.

viaal 3 *
the New Tefiament. 235

CHAP. VI.

Conclufions drawn from the above-men-
tioned Teftimonies.

AFTER having heard fo many clear
and weighty teftimonies of antiquity,
how is it poffible for any intelligent
and impartial man to affert, ‘ that the
prefent Scriptures of the New Tefta-
ment were not declared to be genuine
and divine before the Council of Lao-
dicea, which was held about the year
364°’ The enemies of Chriftianity,—
for thefe only make the affertion,—
would confequently with to infinuate to
the world, that before the fourth cen-
tury Chriftians were entirely divided
in their opinions concerning the. ge-
nuine Scriptures of the Apoftles and
Evangelifts, and that at one time more,
at another, fewer books were received
under this title, until at length the de-

| cifive

236 ‘he Authenticity of

cifive fentence of the Council of Lao-
dicea eftablihhed the prefent Canon. -
The author of the ‘ Di€tionnaire phi-
lofophique portatif’ has lately brought
this ftory again into notice. But if
our adverfaries would caft only a flight
glance over the writings of the above-
mentioned teachers of the firft two
centuries and a half, they would un-
doubtedly bluth at their own ignorance
and boldnefs.—J uftin Martyr, Irenzus,
Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, ey
Origen, prove their tenets by autho-
rities taken from, thefe f{eriptures; and
indeed from thefe only, rejeGting all
others as either forged, _ or _merely
human compofitions, Many . teachers
of the firft and fecond centuries men-
tion a collection of the evangelical and
apoftolical writings as already exifting,
All the ancient writers whom chins
has cited, pronounce either. unani-
moufly or with a great majority of
voices, thefe writings and only thefe,

to

MeNenvieinal: Bay
of fave’ ‘been. gemine works of the
Evangelifts aid Apofiles. * Notwith-

feanding thefe circuinftatices, it is pre-
tended ‘that the firft’ centuries were
Guitethdécided and uncertain on this
fisbyect ! Notiwithftanding thefe circum-
cumflatices, it is Afférted, that the
Council ‘of “Laodicea’ firtt -eftablithed
our prefent | Canontt! 2°

~All the Scriptures of our New Tef-
tament, it'ls confefled, have not been
received with ‘unicerfitl confent as
genuine works of the Evangelifts and
Apofiles * But that man muft have
predetermined to oppofe the moft pal-
pable ‘truths, and muft reject all hif-
tory, Who will not confefs, that the
Bredter part of. the New Teftament
has been univer fully received as au-
thentic, and that the remaining books
have ‘been acknowledged as fuch ‘by

. & This Cinoiot the Cotincil is moreover {purious,
See Prof. Spittler on this fubjees 0 en eo

Bie See above, p. 170. Fi)
si g - , the

238 The Authenticity of

the majority of the ancients; and,
therefore, that all our prefent books of
the New Teftament (the Apocalypfe
perhaps excepted) have ftronger proofs
for their. authenticity, than can be
produced for any of the other writings
of antiquity, for. thofe of Xenophon,
Polybius, Tacitus, or Cicero, which
neverthelefs are received. as genuine
with fuch confidence, that the whole
world pronounced Hardouin infane,
when he attempted to call their authen-
ticity in queftion.—For, in the prefent
cafe, we have not merely a fingle foli-
tary witnefs or two, but a great va-
riety. They name thefe fcriptures not
fimply in a cafual way, but relate their
hiftory, and make long ertra&s from
them. Thefe witnefles are men, who
were intimately acquainted either with
the Evangelifis and Apofiles themfelves,
or their immediate difciples; and
lived at fartheft not later than about
two generations after their times. ‘They

were

‘the New Teftament: 239

were very well verfed, in every. kind of
profane literature; they were philo-
fophers and fcholars, who had formed
their tafte, and fharpened their judg-
ment. by the ftudy. of the beft writers
of antiquity, of Homer, Euripides,
ZE{chylus,. Plato, and Ariftotle; they
were f{cholars, who had read with at-
tention all the works ofthe Chriftian .
authors; who, were alfo, familiar with
the apochryphal writings (of which, mm
the firft century, exifted but few’), and

after

i Even here the enemies of Chriftianity betray
themfelves. They confound all together ; and miftake
-writings forged in much later times for works which
were in circulation foon after the times of the Apoftles
ander their names. Out of a fingle book, with dif-
ferent titles, they make many books. And through
thefe. effets of ignorance or difhonefty, the number of
apochryphal works is. magnified in fuch an amazing
degree, that John Tolland in his Amyntor has. filled
many pages only with the bare names of them.. This
error has been moft amply refuted by Mr. Jeremiah
Jones, in his “New and full method of fettling the
canonical authority of the New Teftament,’ London,
1726, 3 vol, 8yo. in which he goes through each of
thefe

240 The Authenticity of

after accurate fcrutiny, rejected then.
They alfo doubted of the truth of fome
of the books of our New Teftament,
and . thereby’ eftablifhed» an ‘evident
proof that they were by no means cre-
dulous. Some of them travelled in
perfon purpofely to examine into the
truth of the books, which made preten-
fons to divine infpiration, received
accurate information’ on this’ point
from the communities planted by the
Apofiles themfelves, and in their con-

thefe apochryphal works feparately, and proves that
the ancients rejected them as fpurious, and pronounced
the Scriptures of our New Teftament exclufively tobe the
genuine works of the Evangeliits and Apoftles. And
this is alfo tetified ‘by Eufebius (Hitt: Ecclef. Lib. ITT.
“eap. 25) from his own knowledge of the earlieft
writings. —The major part of theft apochryphal works
were written in the fourth century. ‘They all agree in
effential matters with our New Teftament; but they
contain alfo a variety of fables. See thefé writings in
‘Jo. Alb. Fabricii Cod. Apocr. N. Ty yol-iii. in 8vo.
~ Compa. Beatfobre Hift. du Manichée, Vol. iil and
Lardner’s Credibility of the G.'H. Patt Il. ‘vol. xii.
P+ 157174. firft edition.

troverfies

the New Teftament. O41

troverfies with the heretics appealed
to them with confidence *.

k Lardner deferves the greateft credit for his la-
bours on the proof of the authenticity of the New Tef-
tament. In'the fecond part of his ‘ Credibility of the
Gofpel Hiftory,” (which was originally publifhed in
32 vol. 8vo.) and in the ¢ Supplement” (in 3 vol.) he has
colleéted the evidences of the Chriftian authors in a
chronological order atcording to the centuries,

R’ BOOK

BOOK III.
THE UNCORRUPTED PRESERVATION
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Ma Sat ae
ee

CHAP. T.

Lhe Books extant at prefent in the New
Tefiament, are the fame Writings
which were originally compofed by
the Authors whofe Names they bear.

Bort, it may perhaps be faid, have not
thofe books been long ago deftroyed? Are
not thefe which we have at prefent in
the New Teftameiit fome of the writings
which, in the early ages of Chriftianity,
were falfely afcribed to the immediate
difciples of Jefus? Or, how can we
be affured, whether they are not fo
changed by latter interpolations and |
erdfures, as to have become entirely
R 2 different

244 The uncorrupted Prefervation

different from the originals? —It is
therefore neceflary to fhew, that thefe
writings have defcended to us unal-
tered, or, in other words, the uncor-
rupted prefervation of our prefent
New Teftament—And this I fhall
prove anes

I. From their Contents.

AS early as the two firft centuries
of the Chriftian era, we find the very
fame facts and the very fame dorines
univerfally received by the Chriftians,
which we, of the prefent day, believe
on the credit of the New Teftament.—
That Jefus was born under the Roman
emperour Auguftus, and taught in the
Jewith territory; that he publicly per-
formed many and great miracles; was
perfecuted by his enemies the Jews,
though innocent, even to death on the
crofs ; and arofe alive from the grave
on the third day after his death; that
a belief in this Jefus and his do€trine

is

of the New Teftament. 245

is the only way to falvation for all
thofe to whom they have been promul-
gated; that this fame Jefus has pub-
lifhed and ordained for his difciples
‘the wifeft and moft falutary precepts
in refpeét of our conduét towards God,
towards ourfelves, and towards our.
neighbour; that hereafter he will de-
fcend glorioufly from heaven, into
which he vifibly afcended, in order to
awaken the dead, and to judge the
whole. race of mankind:—all this is
afferted in all the earlieft writings of
Chriftian antiquity’ to have been the
univerfal belief of Chriftians™—And

1 See above, Part I. Book II. Ch. i—iii.

m It is only neceflary to read, for inftance, the rgth
and 2oth ch. of Irenzus’s fifth book Adverfus herefes,
where he gives a fhort fketch of the Chriftian doftrine
as it then exifted.—The principal writings on this
fubje&t are, Dionyfii Petravii Dogmata Theologica ;
Jacob Bafnage Hiftoire de I’Elife; Lardner L. cit. ;
and Dr. Semler’s Colleftions from the writings of the’

-old teachers, which he has prefixed to Baumgarten’s
Dogmatic and Polemic. a ap

R 3 all

246 The uncorrupted Prefervation

all this likewife is contained in thofe
books which we now poffefs under the
names of the Evangelifts and Apoftles.

“Il.—Becaufe an univerfal corruption
of thefe writings was impofiible; nor
can the leaft veftige of fuch a cor>
ruption be found in hiftory. -
THAT thefe books fhould be uni-

verfally corrupted was totally impof-

fible from the very ftate of Chriftianity.

—The Chriftian religion, even in the

firft century, was fpread through every

part of the known world. From the
perfecutions which then took place, the
diftin& communities exifting at Jeru-
falem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and
in many other confiderable cities, had
little or no external conneétion with
each other. As early as the firft cen-
tury arofe Heretics, whofe tenets were
refuted by the Orthodox in their writ-
ings. Chriftians, even of no rank or
confequence, were in pofleffion of

i many

of the New Teftament. = 947

many copies of thefe books, which were
reverenced and read with the greateft
attention®. During the two firft cen-
turies no fecret was made of any one
relation or doétrine of the holy ferip-
tures. On the contrary, Juftin Mar-
tyr, Tertullian, Irenzus, appeal to the
facility which every one enjoyed of
reading their fcriptures; and what has -
been termed the Difciplina arcani,
which attempted an occafional fup-
preffion of different hiftories or doc-
trines, is a cuftom of latter times, and
crept into Chriftianity with Pfeudo-
Platonifm*®. And at a very early pe-
riod many tranflations of them were
made into the Syriac and Latin lan-
guages. Now it muft have been almoft
a miracle, if—notwithftanding the great
variety of copies, and tranflations, of
the originals, {pread abroad among

n See Walch On the ufe of the Holy Scripture among
the ancient Chriftians. . Leipzig, 1779, in 8yo.
* See above, p. 94

RA diftin®

248 The uncorrupted Prefervation

diftiné&: communities exifting in no ex-
ternal connection with each other; not-
withftanding thefe writings were held
in profound reverence and diligently
ftudied; notwithftanding the oppofite |
vigilance of heretics and orthodox—if,
I fay, the writings of the Apoftles and
Evangelifts had been falfified in a// the
‘copies of the originals, and of the va-
rious tranflations, without the oppo-
fition of any one community, or of any
fingle teacher.

In the beginning, it is true, the Or-
thodox and Heretics reciprocally ac-
cufed each other of having falfified the
holy fcriptures. But even thefe very
accufations evince the great attention
with which the Chriftians watched over
the purity of their facred books, and
the abfolute impoffibility of their wnz-
werfal corruption, An unknown au-
thor, noticed by Eufebius’, accufes

P Hift, Ecclef. lib, v. cap. xxviii. ps 253—55-
the

of the NewTeftament. 249

the followers of Artemon with having
introduced their heterodox fyftem into
the divine fcriptures. In fupport of
his affertion, he appeals to their own
copies, and afferts that they were not
only different from the copies of the
grthodox, but alfo perfettly at variance
with each other ; and reproaches them
with being unable to fupport thefe al-
terations by the authority of any an-
cient Manuicripts. It is by no means
certain, that thefe heretics had really
introduced thofe fuppofititious altera-
tions into their copies of the New
Teftament; fince the accufer feems to
mean nothing more than the Greek
tranflation of the Old Teftament, which
ig called the Septuagint; produces no
proofs of any fuch corruptions; and,
in fhort, {peaks in a tone too declama-
tory, to be received on this fubjett as
an accurate relator?, But fhould we

4 See Lardner’s Credibility of the G.H. vol. iii.
Po. 43—48, rf edit.

grant,

250 The uncorrupted Prefercation

grant, that the accufations againft Ar-
temon and his followers were juftly
preferred, yet even thefe prove, that
in the earlieft ages of Chriftianity it
was impoffible for any one to attempt
a corruption of the evangelical: and
apoftolical writings, without meeting
public oppofition, and without ‘being
openly branded for a deceiver. That
we may perceive how much fuch an
alteration of the facred feriptures was
abhorred, I will quote the fame. au-
thor’s fentiments on the fubjeét. ‘What
a daring crime this is (i.e. the cor-
ruption of the facred books) :poffibly
they themfelves (the followers of Ar-
temon) are not ignorant. For they
muft either not believe the divine
Scriptures to have been infpired by
the Holy Ghoft; or elfe they muft
imagine themfelves wifer than the Holy
Ghoft: On the firft fuppofition they
are infidels; on the fecond they are
out of their fenfes.”—The heretics. re-

taliated,

of the New Teftament. 251

taliated, and accufed the orthodox of
a fimilar offence. The Manicheans
pretended, that the books of the New
Teftament were not written by the
Evangelifts. and Apoftles, but were
falfely attributed to them in latter times,
or were at leaft violently mutilated
and corrupted by the Chriftians". But
the Manicheans adopted this pretence,
becaufe the fcriptures of the New
Teftament are evidently contradictory
to their erroneous tenets concerning
the Old Teftament, the human nature
of Chrift, the refurre€tion of the dead,
and two eternal principles*. They
have themfelves refuted their own af-
fertion, by quoting as genuine thofe
paflages of the New Teftament which

t Fauftus, one of the moft learned among the Mani-
cheans, had brought forward this accufation with the
greateft fhew of probability in the work, which was re-
futed by Auguftine ; Lib. xxxii. cap. ii, Lib. xxxiil.
cap. iii. in Auguftini Opera, vol. vill. p. 320, et p. 3293
330. edit. Benediétin.

* See the paflages from Fauftus quoted above.

treat

252 The uncorrupted Prefervation

treat of the difcourfes and miracles of
Jefus, without any other proof than
thofe by which we prove the authenti-
city of the whole*. Nor have they of-
fered any hiftorical argument as a
proof of their affertion. ‘There are
abfurdities in the writings of the New
Teftament. The Evangelifts contra-
dié&t themfelves. The author of the
Gofpel attributed to St. Matthew fpeaks
of Matthew in the third perfon*.’
This was the whole proof which the
learned Fauftus could advance in fup-
port of his fuppofition. Arguments,
which in part are vifibly falfe; and
which, even if they were true, could
determine nothing in an hiftorical dif-
cuffion, where every thing depends on
the atteftation of credible witne/fes.
’ In order to have eftablifhed his afler-
tion, Fauftus ought to have demon-
ftrated, that all the old writers and

t Loc. cit. ® Loco cit.
manu-

of the New Tt eftament. 253

manufcripts, which we produce as evi-
dences for the authenticity of the New
- Teftament, prove nothing. He ought
to have quoted oppofite evidences and
. manufcripts, different from thofe which
exifted among the Chriftians. He ought
to have fhewn from hiftory, when and
where thefe corruptions were made.
Had the doétrines of Chriftianity been
really uncertain, this learned writer,
who lived in the latter part of the
_ fourth century, might without much
trouble have produced thefe proofs.
But on all thefe fubjeéts he is perfedly
filent; and every thing which he is
able to produce, confifts entirely in
felf-formed’ conclufions and charges,
which are as groundlefs as the princi-
pal accufation.—His adverfary, Au-
guftine, challenges:him to produce this
proof, and appeals with perfect confi- —
dence to the unanimous teftimony of all
the teachers, and manufcripts of anti-

tiquity.

254 The uncorrupted Prefervation

quity. ‘‘ What writings (fays he”) can
you receive as genuine, if you rejeé
thofe of the Evangelifts and Apoftles ?
We are convinced of the genuinenefs
of the apoftolical writings in the fame
manner, as we know that the works of
Plato, Ariftotle, Cicero, or Varro,
were derived from thofe whofe names
they bear. Who can be fo abfurd as
to rejeét our Scriptures, for whofe
genuinenefs, from the time of the
Apoftles, the Church has depofed fuch
numerous and concordant teftimo-
nies ?”—This very accufation, there-
fore, of itfelf proves, that the argu-
ments for the authenticity of the evan-
-gelical and apoftolical writings are in-
controvertible.

~ Contra Fauftum, Lib. XXXTII. cap. vi. pe 3309
331. edit. Benediétin,

II.

¥

of the New Tefiament. Q55

III.—From the Agreement of alt
_ the Manufcripts.

THE manufcripts of the Scriptures
of the New Teftament, which are ftill
extant, are far more numerous than
thofe of any other book in the world, ©
Above two hundred and fifty have
been already collated by critics in their
different editions. Of thefe, it is true,
all do not contain the whole of the
New Teftament: the greater part have
only the Gofpels; others contain alfo
the A&s and the Epiftles of the Apof-
tles; and a very fmall number the
Revelation of St. John*. All thefe

* Befides thefe, a great number are preferved in the
libraries of Germany, Italy, and other countries, which
have not yet been confulted. The moft perfeét and
accurate information concerning the MSS. which have
been ufed in editions of the Greek Teft. isto be found
in the Prologomena to Mill’s and Kiifter’s edition of
the N. T. in the Prologomena to Wetftein’s N. T. and —
;n Michaelis* Intr, to the N. T. vol. iii. p. 1285—36r.
of the learned and accurate Mr« Marth’s Tranflation.

manu-

256 Theuncorrupted Prefervation

manufcripts, which were written in very
different parts of the world, and of
which fome are above twelve hundred
years old, give us the books of the
New Teftament in all e/féntial matters
perfeétly accordant with each other, 4s
any one may eafily convince himfeélf
by examining the editions publifhed by
Mill, Kufter, Bengel, Wetftein, or
Griefoach.—The thirty thoufand Va-
rious Readings, which are faid to be
found even in the manufcripts col
lated by Mill, confift almoft entirely in
nothing but palpable errors in tran-
fcription, or trifling grammatical and
verbal differences which by no means
make any alteration in the fenfe of
the fubje&t’. Some indeed change the

y As—Mark iv. 32, inftead of, dray cmaen, wher
it is fown ; bray Qun, ‘when it is grown up:—Chap. ve
9, amexesdn Arywr, he anfwered, faying; Arye avrTys
be fays unto him :—or inftead of ecsaBovres, eASovres 5
inftead of BAAN YES aS, EAAnVEAS 3 inftead of TLOETEVAYS
TWROETWVEY S inftead of Puprrarovy Paueicaruy 5 inftead of
Canrica, Camricbne

fenfe,

of the New Teftament: 257
fenfe, yet only in paflages which re-
late unimportant hiftorical and geo-
graphical circumftances, or other col-
lateral matters *. And the few which
make any alteration in things of con-
feqyence, do not on that account place
ws in abfolute uncertainty. For either
we can ‘difcover the true reading by
collating the other manufcripts, ver-
fions, and quotations found in the
works of the ancients*; or, fhould
this not be the cafe, yet we can even
then explain with certainty the doc-
trine from other paflages of. the facred
books *.—Thefe numerous variations,

Z~ For inftance ; yadeepnvar, for yepyernvav: Bn=
Qabupas for Bubavaw: or Luke xxiv. 43, the addition,
eDarye, nas To emsAcima edwney autos; Acts of the
Apott. viii. 39, wvevpa cyto ereced ext Tov evyexoy.

a As1 Tim. iii. 16; where we find the different
readings, @eog és, and 6.

b For inftance, Aéts of the Apoft. xx. 28, fome
MSS, inftead of @ce have Kugiz. Let us fuppofe that we
could not here make out which is the true reading, yet
the matter may be determined from many other paflages.

s therefore,

£58 The uncorrupted Prefervation

therefore, are the mot convineing
proof, that the Holy Scriptures have
not been altered in any point of doc- ©
trine of morality, or other niatter of
importance; becaufe they are found
perfectly concordant in all manufcripts:
of the originals and of the verfions,
which have been written and compofed
in Europe, Afia, and Africa. So far
therefore from bemg hoftile to the
uncorrupted prefervation of the books
of our New Teftament, (as fome ene-
mies of Chriftianity have afferted from
ignorance or wicked motives, and as
many Chriftians have likewife appre-
hended from groundlefs fear) thefe va-
riations afford us, on the contrary, am
additional and moft convincing proof,
that they exift at prefent, in all effential

matters, as they left the hands of their
authors,

IV.

of the New Teftament. . 259

1V.—From the agreement of the old
werfions, and quotations found in the
ecclefiaftical fathers.

AFTER all, fhould any one enter-
tain a doubt concerning the uncor-
rupted prefervation of our books of the .
New Teftament, it muft perfeéily va-
nifh, if we confider the wonderful
agreement of all the old verfions, and
of all the quotations and extracts
found in the ecclefiaftical fathers.—
There is {till extant a Syriac tranflation
of all the books of the New Teftament
(the fecond Epiftle of St. Peter, the
fecond and third Epiftles of St. John,
the Epiftle of St. Jude, and the Reve-
lation of St. John, alone excepted),
which, in all probability, was made in
the firft century. Inthe fame period
exifted in+the Weftern church Latin
verfions, of which confiderable frag-
ments ftill remain. The Latin tranf-_
| sQ lation

260 The uncorrupted Prefervation

lation of Jerom (which is generally
called the Vulgate), the Coptic, dif-
ferent Arabic, the Ethiopic, Armenian,
Perfic, and Gothic, verfions are in-
deed in part much more modern, and
therefore not confidered by critics on
the New Teftament as of equal confe-
quence’. Yet they prove thus much,
that in all communities of Chriftians,
both in the Eaft and Welt, the fame
writings have ever been regarded as
genuine works of the Evangelifts and
Apoftles, which we in the prefent
day find ftill unaltered in our New
Teftament.—lf we add to thefe circum-
ftances, that the ecclefiaftical fathers
of the firft centuries have quoted al-
moft every verfe of the New Teftament,
and, in regard to eflential points, ex-
actly agreeably to our prefent text;
alfo, that many of them (for inftance,
Origen, Chryfoftom, Jerom, Auguftin,

© Michaelis has given very ample information con-
cerning thefe verfions in his Introduction to the N. T-

Cyril

of the New Teftament. 261

Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, and
Gcumenius,) have left us commen-
taries either on all, or on individual
books of the New Teftament, of which
the feriptural text exattly coincides
with our printed copies,—we muft
without hefitation confefs, that the
books which are now extant in our
editions of the New Teftament are the .
uncorrupted writings of the Evangelifts
and Apoftles.
' The enemies of Chriftianity not-
withftanding, continually pretend that
they have been corrupted!—No one
indeed, who poffeffes the leaft know-
ledge of the principles of criticifm,
will readily affert, that the Various
Readings are corruptions.—But on this
fubje&t we meet with Collins, who
appeals to an alteration of the Gofpels,
which, according to the information of
ecclefiaitical hiftory, is faid to have
taken place in the fixth century under
the Emperour Anaftafius. Victor,
$3 Bithop

262 The uncorrupted Prefervation

Bifhop of Tunis in Africa, relates in
his Chronicon®, that the Emperour
Anaftafius, confidering that the Gof-
pels were written by illiterate men,
ordered them to be improved at Con-—
fiantinople. This Victor is the only
evidence that can be brought forward
for this event; for Ifidore of Seville
relates it merely on his authority. He
lived in Africa; confequently far dif-
tant from the {cene where the altera-
tion is faid to have taken place. All
the other writers make not the leaft
mention of this circumftance: which,
without doubt, would have excited
bitter and unanjmous complaints againft
the Emperour, already an object of
general hatred. Moreover, Viétor offers
not the fhadow of a proof in fupport of
his narration: he names no immediate
witnefies on whofe authority he relates
the ftory. Now, from a relation fo

a Ad. As 506. See Scaligeri Thefaurus tem-
porum, |

i‘? very

of the New Teftament. 268

very incredible, Collins, in oppofition
to the unanimous affertions of fo many
and fuch credible witnefles, attempts
to prove the corruption of the New
Teftament®’. But, even if we thould
erant, that this information delivered
by an African Bifhop of an event which
is faid to have happened at Conftan-
tinople, is deferving of credit; yet the
alteration would not have taken place
in all the manufcripts which exifted in
the Faftern church; for, according. to
his own information, it is faid to have
been made only in the manufcripts
at Conftantinople. And if it had
been actually put in execution in all

e In his * Difcourfe of free-thinking,’ p. 69—73.-
In order to prove that the Scriptures of the New Tefta-
ment are perfeétly uncertain, he introduces the follow-
ing arguments:—1. Becaufe the Canon of the New
Teftament was not made until fixty years after the
death of Chrift.—(But it could not have been formed
earlier, for before that time all the Holy Scriptures had
not been compofed).—z. From the thirty thoufand dif-
ferent readings in Mill.—And 3. From the paflage of
Viktor, alluded to above.

s 4 the

264 The uncorrupted Prefercation

the Oriental manuicripts, yet the ma-
nufcripts of the Weftern church, over
which Anaitafius had no authority,
would have remained unaltered. Fur-
ther, if we fhould grant even this, yet
it was impoffible to alter al/ the manu-
Scripts of all the verfions. Had there-
fore fuch an alteration been aétually
undertaken, it could not have been
univerfat; but there would ftill have
remained either the manufcripts of the
Weft, or at leaft the verfions, from
which we might have been enabled to
reftore the original text. Since there-
fore not only all the Oriental and all
the Weftern manu{cripts of the Greek
Gofpels perfeétly coincide with each
other ; but alfo all the old tranflations,
and all the citations and commentaries
of the primitive ecclefiaftical writers
are in perfe€t harmony with them,—
it 1s moft evident, either that the re-
lation of V itor is a mere fable, or that
fuch an alteration, fhould it even have
been

of the New Teftament. 265

been refolved on, was never actually
put into execution‘.

Had the enemies of Chriftianity -
ftudied the proofs of our holy religion
with more diligence and impartial care,
they would not at leaft have confidered
fuch palpable abfurdities as objeétions
to its truth. The objeétion of Collins
has perhaps a femblance of reafon..
But when Chubb*® fays—‘It is abun-
dantly evident that the Bible has been
corrupted in the dark ages of popery
by the clergy, in whofe hands it at

f See * Remarks upon a late difcourfe of free-think-
ing, by Phileleutherus Lipfienfis,’ Cambridge, the fixth
edition, 1725, in$vo. Dr. Richard Bentley, the author
of this work, defends the authenticity of our New
Teftament, particularly againft the objeétions which
are drawn from the Various Readings, and from the
atvove-mentioned information of Vidtor, p. 61-—-84.—
Jn all probability this flory of Viétor took its origin
from his having mifunderftood the account concerning
Macedonius, Patriarch of Conftantinople. See loc,
cit. p. 82.

& In his Pofthumous Works, vol. i. p. 65, 66,
148, 121, 122, &c,

that

266 The uncorrupted, &c.

that time exclufively exifted,’-—-it is in
fag to affert, that the Pope and his
elergy had brought together all the
manuicripts of the New Teftament,
and the almoft innumerable manu-
{cripts of the different verfions, and all
the works of the ecclefiaftical fathers;
and when, with wonderful fagacity,
they had projected and carried into ex-
ecution fuch an almoft miraculous un-
dertaking, that with inconceivable ftu-
pidity they altered not a fingle one of
thofe paffages which eyidently con-
tradiét their erroneous tenets, for in-
fiance, concerning papal fupremacy,
the worfhip of faints, the mafs, celi-
bacy, monaftic vows, purgatory, and
indulgences. ;

PART

PART IL

THE CREDIBILITY OF THE NEW
| PESTAMENT.

BOOK If.

The Authors of the New Te sic
— poffefs in a very high Degree all the
requifite Qualities of credible Evi-
dences.

Ir we now unite the propofitions al-
. ready proved; if we confider the great
number of credible witneffes, who una-
nimoufly relate, that foon after the
death of Jefus four Gofpels, and the |
fame number of Epiftles as ftill exift
in the colle€tion of the New Tefta-
ment, were written by the Apoftles and
Difciples of Jefus; that thefe books,
as we poflefs them at prefent, are the

very

268 The Credibility of

very fame in all the tranflations and
manufcripts of the original; and per-
feétly coincide with the quotations and
commentaries of the primitive writers;
—we muft either rejeét the writings of
Xenophon, Thucydides, Livy and Ta-
eitus, for whofe authenticity neither
fo many nor {trong arguments can be
found, and, in a word, all the ancient
writings in the world, as not genuine,
—or we muft acknowledge, that the
fcriptures of the New Teftament are
authentic, and in every matter of im-
portance, perfecily uncorrupted.

But from this alone we cannot de-
termine their Credibility. An author
may write of events, which happened
in his time and in the place of his re-
fidence, but fhould he be either cre-
dulous or a fanatic, or fhould we have
reafon to fufpeét his honefiy, his evi-
dence is of no value. In order, there-
fore, to eftablifh the Credibility of an
author, we muft examine more clofely

into

| the New Teftament. 269

into his particular chara¢ter, and in- |
quire whether he poffeffed abilities fuf-
ficient to fcrutinize the truth, and ho-
nefty enough faithfully to relate it as it
happened.

Now the hiftorical writers of the
New Teftament are diftinguifhed alfo
from all others whofe credibility has
never been called in queftion by any
reafonable man, in this refpeét—that
if hiftorical fubjeéts were capable of
mathematical demonftration, we muft
acknowledge that their credibility has
been not only morally proved, but even
demonftrated mathematically.

SECT. [.

They were immediate Witneffes.

THE writers of the New Teftament
lived at the time, and in the place, of
the actual occurrence of the events,
which are the fubje& of their hiftory.
St. Matthew, St. John, St. Peter, St.

James,

270 The Credibility of

Noiken and St. Jude, were. Jews by —
birth, and lived in the reigns of Au-
guftus and Tiberius, at Jerufalem, the
fcene of the hiftory which they relate.
They, were all, moreover, zmmediate
difciples of Jefus, and the faéts con-
tained in their hiftories had been fub-
je& to the {crutiny of their own fenfes.
—TIt is true that St. Paul was a native
of Tarfus, and not among thofe who
had been the friends of Jefus, and
the eye-witnefles of his aétions. Yet
he had lived a long time at Jerufalem,
had ftudied Theology under Gamaliel,
a Jewifh fcholar at that time in the
greateft repute, and diligently employed
himfelf in acquiring a thorough know-
ledge of the Jewith religion.—We have
but few biographical memoirs extant
of St. Mark and St. Luke: Yet thus
much we do know, that the former
compofed his hiftory under the imme-
diate infpeétion of St. Peter", and the

h See the teftimonies of Clement of Alexandria,
Papias, and Tertullian, on this fubjeét.
1 latter

the New Tefiament. art
fatter his narration under the imme-
diate infpection of St. Paul*. Their
_hiftories muft therefore be confidered
to poffefs the fame authority as if they
had beén written by the eye-witneffes

themfelves, whom we have nained
above *.

SECT. II.
- They were alfo competent Witnefes.

THE writers of the New Teftament
had the moft important reafons, and
fufficient abilities, to examine into the
¢ruth or falfhood of their hiftories.

i See the teftimonies of Tertullian and Origen.

« The -Aés of the Apoftles and ‘the Gofpel by
St. Luke form but one book. For in the Aéts of the
-Apoitles i. x. the writer names his Gofpel Wewtdy
Aoyov, libfum primum, the firff part; he coritihues
immediatelyfrom thence, where he had left off in the
Gofpel; and has dedicated both to ove man, namely,
Theophilus.—Confequently, whatever is faid by the
"ancients concerning the Hiftory of St. Luke, is to be
underftood not only of the Gofpel, but alfo of the Acts
of the Apoftles,

They

272 The Credibility of

They relate their memoirs, not for the
purpofe of delighting future ages, or
of conveying information in the ufual
method of hiftorical writings ; but they
build on them a Syfiem of Religion,
from which alone they expeéted their
temporal and eternal welfare. ‘ If
Chrift be not rifen,’ fays St. Paul’,
“then is our doétrine and your faith .
falfe; then are we yet in our fins; then
they who have died in the belief of the -
truth of our religion are perifhed for
_ ever; then are we perfecuted Chrif-
tians of all men the moft miferable.’
A hiftory which they conceived to be fo
effential, the very foundation of all
their hopes and of all their faith, had
been’ undoubtedly fcrutinized and
proved by them with the moft anxious

care.

1 x Corinth. xv. 1319.

SECT.

“ec

ce

the New Tefiament. 973

SECT. Lil:

~

They were by no means credulous. -

“"BUT who—it is objeGted—is un-
acquainted with the power of Cre-
dulity and Fanaticifm? The innu-
merable multitude of fanatics of

whom hiftory gives us information,

may have employed care and labour
enough on the examination of their
wonderful adventures ; yet credulity
and fanaticifm had blinded their rea-
fon to that degree, that fome of them
have even fancied that they had a
daily intercourfe with the Deity,

and were furnifhed with miraculous

powers. No one, for inftance, can
deny that Baron Swedenborg was a
man of learning, penetration, and
honefty; neverthelefs this man, in
other refpeéts of found judgment
and worthy of credit, believed and

: T ** afferted,

O74 The Credibility of

“ afferted, for the fpace of more than
“‘ forty years, that he had frequent
vifits from angels, was caught up
into Heaven, and there received a.
variety of new doétrines.”—Cer-
tainly this obfervation ought to render
us extremely cautious in examining
fuch hiftories, particularly thofe con-
~neéted with a religious fyftem. But
this caution and feverity of examina-
tion, when applied to the hiftory of the
New Teftament, fhew us fo much the
more evidently, that the writers of it
poffeffed the moft perfe& capability of
avoiding any errors, and of accurately
examining the true ground of their nar-
ratives. The events which they relate
are .of fuch a nature, that the proof of
‘their truth requires nothing more than
‘found organs of fenfe. The examples
‘of the aftonifhing deceptions of fa-
natical people relate for the moft part.
‘to-opinions; feldom or never to hif-
torical fubjecis, or to’ matters of fact.
| And

6e

66

«e

the New Teftament. 975

And who does not perceive that thefe
are widely different from each other?
In a Court of juftice we can prove the
truth of a fatt by means of witnefles ;
but it has never been heard, that the
truth of an opinion (for inftance, the
immateriality or immortality of the
foul) was eftablifhed by the depofition
of evidences. A man may likewife be
deceived from certain affeétions in-
comparably eafier in the cafe of opi-
nions, than in the cafe of fatts. In ©
the cafe of facts alfo there exifts a
great difference. The Quaker, Jacob
Maylor, in the time of Cromwell’s
protectorate, could eafily imagine that
he was transformed into the perfon of
Chrift, and made the Saviour of the
world: or another fanatic may. with equal
eafe perfuade himfelf, that he enjoys
vifions of the Deity, and that he feels
a particular infpiration of the Spirit.
For in order to afcertain the truth of .
faéts which concern ourfelves, and our

T 2 internal

276 The Credibility of

internal fenfations, we muft prefuppofe
the perfon endowed with a found and
well-cultivated judgment, and no com-
mon knowledge of the diftinétion be-
tween fenfations and imaginations. But
that a man, Jefus, taught at Jerufalem.
in the reign of Tiberius; that he re-
vealed certain new and peculiar doc-:
trines to his difeiples; that in public
places, and in the prefence of many
perfons, he healed a variety of people
who were lame, blind and dumb, and
alfo, under circumftances of the like
publicity, gave life to the dead; that
he died on the crofs, was buried in the
cuftomary manner of the Jews, and
on the third day came again alive to
his friends; had intimate intercourfe
with them as before his death; and in
the fight of many of thefe friends
afcended gradually into the air, and at
laft vanifhed from their eyes ;—/uck
facts require, in order to prove their
truth, and, fet them beyond the poffi-
bility

the New Teftament. Q77

~_

bility of doubt, nothing more than that
the witnels’s organs of fight and hear-
ing be found, and that he ufes them
like one awake. esate hy
To this muft be added, that the
Apoftles were by no means credulous.
They might perhaps have poffeffed this
paffign, fo prevalent among the Jews,
in other refpetts, and have amufed
themfelves with fables. But, .22 this
matter, they were certainly fo far re-
moved from it, that we have reafon to
think them rather incredulous and ob-
jtinate. Their Mafter had informed
them beforehand, that after his paffion
and death he would arife from the
dead: but fcarcely had the Roman
guard taken him into cuftody, before
they all fled, refigned their fiattering
hopes, and abfolutely denied that they
had ever known him. Some women
relate that they had found the grave
empty, and had fpoken with. Jefus
alive. Now, had the Apotiles been
T3 in

278 The Credibility of

in the leaft degree credulous, they
would not affuredly. haye had the leaft
hefitation in believing it: but they, ri-
diculed it as an idle tale”. ; St. Peter
neverthelets, inftigated by curiofity, runs
to the place, and finds the report per-
feétly true; the grave. is.,open . and
empty ; he—wonders. and. departs”.

After fome time J efus-comes into their
affembly,. where.ten, of. the Apofiles
are prefent: and now. they. can, doubt
no longer... But. St, Thomas, who was.
abfent, thinks, them all. deceived, » and
will not believe. before. he» has. accu-
rately infpeGted’ the body of this, per-

fon, and difcovered. on it the marks of
his crucifixion, and the wound in his
fide*.. And how violently was St; Pau]
prepoffeffed againft the truth of this
hiftory? How ative in difcovering
thofe who confeffed it, and in. procur-
ing their death’? Can we believe that

™ Luke xxiv. r—13, © John xx. 24, 25.
® Luke xxiv. tz. 0. UP Ags viii. ix.
fuch

the New Tefiaments: 279

fuch, people were. credudous, and, fup-',
pofe that they received their, hiftory, as.
true on the firft vague report, without
further examination?—Had Cromwell,
in the prefence of the Lotds and Com-
mons, afferted that he had. feen the
unfortunate King Charles a few weeks
after his execution, firft in ‘Weftminfter
Abbey, and afterwards many times in
St. James’s palace; and converfed with ’
him frequently for feveral hours: to-
gether; had the Ufurper, in confe-"
quence of this, refi igned the Protec-
torate, and made preparations for
bringing back the exiled Queen and
family ; we fhould have conceived, per-
haps, that he had experienced an ex--
traordinarily violent fit of Fanaticifin ;
but it would have occurred to no one
to accufe him on this account of Cre-
dulity; and to affert, that he had
blindly received this relation as true
gnly on the information of an’ old fol-
PN Sl dier,

280 The Credwbility of

dier, or a woman that was perfeétly -
unknown to him.

SECT. IV.

| Neither we ere they Fanatics.

SOME may. perhaps be inclined to
adduce the above example againft the
truth .of the Gofpel-hiftory. The.
Jtrangenefs and wonderfulne/s of fuch
a relation,- it may be faid, would have
inclined. every reafonable man to have
contceiy ed. that the Prote€tor was rather
a fanatic than that his narration was
true. Mo his I fhall hereafter examine.
And here, where we are not treating of
the miracles, but. merely of the .com-
mon and. cuftomary. events, of the
apoftolical. hiftory, we muft firft ex-
amine _ this queftion, —whether the-
writers of the New. Teftament can rea-
fonably be confidered as fanatics ; or
whether we cannot difcover evident

traces,

the New Teftament. 281
traces, that they were not in the leaft
infe&ted with this dangerous’ poifon of
the human underftanding ? Ani inquiry
which will conduct » us into. zone oF the
of the ittoty of the human’ under-
ftanding ; and is abfolutely effential
for the ‘conviétion of Chriftians, on
account of the frequent accufation
of fanaticifm which is made ‘by ‘the
enemies of the New Teftament. To
examine this fubje& therefore more ac-'
curately will amply repay our trouble.
OT will, in’ the firft place, - endeavour
to colleét from hiftory the different fea
tures in. the charaéter of this aftonifh-
ing phenomenon, a fanatic;—and then
compare the picture with our feriptural’
writers 4 cma Fanatestl thinks himfe if al-
i | meng?

q Fanatic, fanaticeus, ‘exearin@, es is
one who a&ts only according to his fenfations, and not
according to the reflef&tions of his reafon. And this
is the cafe, even when his fenfations are true, agreeable:
to their objeéts: but ftill more fo, when they are

} merely

262, Lhe Credibility of

ways the chief favourite of heaven. . And,
truly a perfon in whom the, Divinity
immediately :dwells,. with whom He
deigns, daily to: hold immediate con-,
verie, and makes a living oracle; fuch,
a perfon moft affuredly has-reafon, to
believe, that he is. extraordinarily, fa-,
voured by God. This fanatical, pride.
is often, carried. to fuch an.extent in
men, that they convince themfelves
God fhould do every thing which they,
defire; and. if. He does it not,, think,
themfelves offended, break out. into
acrimonious complaints againft, Him,
or uncharitable. ‘accufations of ungod> _
sain in other ERY: which they. bile

merely imaginary, A man aE act fanatically. in a
variety of ways: for inftance, if he be guided in his
condu& by mere antipathies, or fympathies, perform
any thing only becaufe he feels an internal excitement
to it; imagine that he has feen angels, hears dif-
courfés.from heaven, &¢e.—But.we mutt be very careful
not to"confound the fanatic with the fentimentalift, the
man of: feeling (evbeciagns): the latter is a praife-
worthy quality, the former a blameable.

oI

to

the New Teftament. 283

to be the caufe of the difaffeétion ‘of
heaven.— Di/order and contradiétion in
their fyfiem, (af.a collection of un-
conneéted, problematical, and. contra-,
di€tory opinions can be called a fyftem)
and obfcurity and abfurdity in. their
explication of it, form another feature,
in. the, fanatical chara¢ter. Men, in
whom the power of the fenfes is ex-).
tended: to'a kind of madnefs, are. not
in a condition to employ the reafoning.
faculties of the underftanding, which:
require internal tranquillity.. And the
conftant ‘tumult of their minds renders
them) in¢apable, of {peaking conneét-
edly and rationally... Should they dif-,
courfe, of, their, infpiration, | ‘that. ob=
{curity becomes | perfect nonfenfe., Ay
Fanatic may, be ja,|perfon of great, tax
lents.and.jrare prudence - in the. ma-.
nagement . of his temporal concerns.
But )this, ftrength of mind is. of no
other, ule. to him. only | to. fink, him,

deeper in the vortex.of. his fancies and,
| follies.

284 The Credibility of
follies. And this abfurdityin‘his dif-
courfes, compared with the’ prudence
in the management’ of his temporal
concerns, forms one of the ftrangeft
contrafts that we can- imagine.—Fa-
natics are generally enemies, or at leaft
contemners, of all written revelation :
becaiife it renders their own continual
infpiration perfeétly unneceflary. They
diftinguifh it by the low and irreverent
name of an? obftwre ‘writing, which
muft be cleared up’ by internal light,
and of a dead letter, which muft be
animated by the living fpirit which
exifts in the foul.—This is the caufe
of the complete indifference to all re-
ligion, which is commonly united with
Fanaticifm.: ‘Their mind,’ fays a pro-
foundly thinking hiftorian; |‘ which
floats on the wide fea ‘of ‘infpiration,
can be confined within no bounds ;
and therefore they permit to others
alfo the fame liberty.’ But’ however
tolerant they may often be in religious
matters,

the New Ti eflament. 285

matters, in their civil concerns they
are equally cruel and barbarous. The
fuppofition that they are immediately
influenced by God in all their actions
and undertakings, and that they think
and aét by his command, places them
far above humanity, and blinds them
to fuch a degree, that they exercife the
moft cruel tyranny, and fhed in ftreams -
the blood of God's creatures and _chil-
dren, not only without any fenfations
of pity, but, on the contrary, with joy
and triumph.—That fanatics exhibit a
wonderful firmnefs under fufferings
and torments is known to every one,
and has been frequently ufed by the
enemies of Chriftianity, to detraét from
the firm heroic courage of the Chrif-
tian martyrs. But the charatteriftic
of fanatical firmnefs under torments,
namely that wnprudent, inflexible ob-
JStinacy and that infenfible obduracy
which in thefe cafes they conftantly .
exhibit, has not been often remarked.
If

286 The Credibility of
If a perfon does not give himfelf the
leaft trouble ‘to reprefent to his ty-
rants, with modefty and gentlenefs, the
principles for the fake of which he is
perfecuted; but, on the contrary, an-
fwers thofe in authority over bim either
riot at all, or with impertinence; if he
reje&t all the methods, which prudence
would point out for avoiding his tor-
ments either wholly or in part, without
violence to his principles, and if he
rather folicit fufferings : who does not
perceive that fuch a firmnefs under
torments cannot proceed from a calm
and rational refle€tion and an heroic
difregard of the world; but is the
effeét of a morofe, unfocial obftinacy
and an inhuman obduracy; rather a
paroxifm of frenzy than a praifeworthy
firmnefs of mind ?—This paroxifm of-
ten increafes to fuch a degree, that it
produces even convulfive. agitations of
the body, and abfolute madnefs; as we
learn particularly from the early hif-
tory

; 2)

the New Teflament. 287

tory of the Quakers.—Such gloomy
and morofe perfons, ‘who confider the
world with naufea ‘and ‘hatred, and
have retired as it were back into them-
felves, in order to liften’ conftantly to
the fuggeftions of heaven; who ima-
gine ‘that they are ‘infinitely exalted
above common humanity, and are the
particular objeéts of ‘the divine favour
and ‘care: fuch perfons cannot cer-
tainly form a focial, beneficent fyftem
of morality. Condemnation of all-in-
nocent indulgences; a folitary, felfith,
gloomy, melancholy life; numerous
fafts; rigid vows of celibacy; all“pof- .
fible avoidance of domeftic and civil
fociety ; hoftile hatred of the’body and
of the world; corporeal fufferings and
mortifications; in fhort, a moro/e, un-
focial, and barbarous fecerity is the
charatteriftic of a-Fanatic’s fyftem of
morality. eS ee SRS OCS
It would condu& me‘too far from
my ‘purpofe, were I ‘to enter on *a
more

988 The Credibility of

more ample developement of this cha-
raéter. Whoever is acquainted with
the hiftory of the Montanifts, of Ma-
homet, of the earlieft Anabaptifts, of
Cromwell and his fanatical followers,
of the Quakers, and Janfenifts, will
be able to confirm the truth of each
individual feature fketched above by
_ many examples from hiftory:

From this pi€ture of fanaticifm can-
not be feleéted a fingle, even the moft
trifling, feature which can be applied
to the writers of the New Teftament ;
on the contrary, they poffeffed traits
diametrically oppofite to every one of
them.—Thefe men relate many great
errors and faults which they had them-
felves fallen into: their ftrange ideas
of the temporal kingdom of the Mef-
fiah; their inconftancy towards Jefus,
whom they all deferted at his death ;
the rafh and mad zeal with which St.
Paul perfecuted the Chriftians; the
reprehenfible hypocrify of St. Peter.

They

the New Tefiament. 289

They make mean ‘and humble defcrip-
tions of themfelves; they attribute all
their gifts and extraordinary endow-
ments folely to the unmerited grace of
God; ‘they reprefent’ themfelves: as_
flaves, fervants of the Chriftians, and
as unworthy objects of the divine grace
and beneficence’.. They fpeak, alfo,
uniformly of themfelves with equal re-—
verence, modefty, and humility*.—In
their fyftem exifts the moft perfec
harmony. St. Paul has never contra-
diéted himfelf in his epiftles, which he
wrote at very different times, and
addrefied to very different commu-
nities and perfons. The hiftorians of
Jefus have indeed fome trifling dif-

~ erepancies in the collateral circum-
{tances of their narratives (and this -is
an evident proof that they did not
copy one from another) ; but in effen-
tial matters they entirely and perfeétly

t 1 Tim. i. 15, 16.
§ x Corinth. xv. 10. 2 Corinth.

U agree.

290 The Credibility. of

agree. And although fcarcely one
among them had read the writings of
the others‘, yet their hiftories and doc-
trines are perfectly concordant. The
fyftem itfelf, even thofe parts of it
which treat of their infpiration’, is
exhibited with fuch method, connec-
tion, perfpicuity, and. good natural
underftanding, that the moft fimple can
underftand it in its effential-parts, and
comprehend the fenfe of the writers”.—

In

t St. John, St. Peter, and St. Jude, are the only
icriptural authors, of whom it is probable that they
had read the writings of ‘the others, before they com-
pofed their own works.

% x Corinth, ii.

w Benfon, in the Appendix to his Paraphrafe of
the Epiftle to Philemon, in the Firft Differtation, ‘ In
which it is fhewn that St. Paul could neither be an im-
poftor nor)an enthufiaft,’ has made fome very excellent
obfervations on the charaéter of the Apoftle, which is
fo clearly expreffed in the whole of the Epiftle: how
far he was removed from all ambition, pride, and felf-
ifhnefs ; how compaffionate towards human mifery
and weaknefs; how well acquzinted with the modes
of thinking and language of the polifhed world; how

exempt

the New Teftament. 291

In their, writings they fhew the greateft
veneration for the written revelation
of the Old Teftament. They. exhort
their difciples to fiudy it diligently

webb aS

velation, and a binding rule of belief
and condu’ ; and they point out its
friendly harmony with the Chriftian
fyftem *.—They invariably infift on this
truth, that no other religion than that
which they preached, can procure men

exempt from a folitary enthufiaftic temper of mind. —
Read this Epiftle in the Paraphrafe of Sir Richard
Steele, in his Chriftian Hero. I could with that fome
friend of the Chriftian religion would, with the fame
- ylew, devote his attention to the confideration of the
fpeeches of St. Paul in the Aéts of the Apoftles, and.
unfold the conneétion, folidity, confidence,’ fublimity,
and integrity which are fo very prominent in them.
Such a work would be a convincing apology for the.
{criptural authors, in refpe&t of their pretended fa-
Naticifm. ~,

x 2 Tim. iii. 14—17.

y 2 Peter i. 20, 216

2 A&ts ii, 1436. xiii. 1 S—415 Rom. iv. 10.

1g—21, &c.

u 2 {o

292 The Credibility of

fo great and lafting happinefs*. But they
make always a diftinétion between guilty
and innocentignoranceand error’: And
thus rejeé all religious indifference on
the one hand, and on the other all in-
tolerant and anathematizing principles.
—In their fentiments and aétions we
remark the moft meek, charitable and
benevolent temper. They earneftly
forbid men to accufe others of hetero-
doxy, or to pronounce them damned‘;
they anxioufly exhort to obedience of
human ordinances, and the commands
of the heathen magiftracy*; they di-
re& that prayers fhould be offered up
even for Nero‘; and their whole
fyftem of morals is direétly pointed to
inftil into their difciples an univerfal,
conftant, difinterefted, and generous

a Aéts iv. 12. Rom. iil. 20—24.

> Rom. i. ii. &c.

© Rom. xiv. 3—-23.:

@ Rom. xiii. 1—7. 1 Peter ii. 1337.
sy Tim. ii. 1-6,

phi-

the New Teftament. 293

philanthropy‘. ‘ I conjure you by all
the good things, which Jefus has pro-
cured us; by the enlivening comforts
which accompany charity ; by the in-
timate conneétion in which you ftand
with one another; that you fulfil my
only joy, and be unanimous, chari-
table, of one mind; do nothing with
ftrife, and vain glory, but in humility
let each efteem others higher than.
himfelf; and be anxious not only for
your own advantage, but alfo for the
advantage of others. For you muft
have fentiments fuch as were the fenti-
ments of Jefus Chrift; who joyfully and
voluntarily yielded up all his preemi--
nencies and divine majefty for the ad-
vantage of men®. Is this the language
of a Fanatic? Read only the thirteenth
chapter of the firft Epiftle to the Co-
rinthians, or the firft Epiftle of St.
John, and then fay, whether fuch fo-

f Rom. xiii. 8—16. Galat. Vv. 3%» 14.
& Phil, ii, r->11,

v3 cial

294 The Credibility of

cial and benevolent principles aiid fen-
timents could exift in the mind of
Fanatic? Did ever a Fanatic place
philanthropy, that is a philanthropy
which confifts in an univerfally ex-
tended, and univerfally aétive kind-
nefs*, ‘above all his Opinions, favourite
“do&trines, and efpecial gifts? ‘or {peak
of it with fuch ‘ftrong ‘feelings and in
fuch emphatic language ?—And this
fyftem of morals they not ‘only‘enforced
-by words, but alfo by their example.
They have never affumed a dominion
over. their difciples; never required
what they direéted, in ‘a commanding
tone, Was it neceffary for the welfare
of Chriftianity to ufe feverity? even
‘this was marked with the charaéters of
pity towards the ‘tranfgreffors, and of
a paramount defi re to increale the Be-

a feries of “atii@ions, tribulations, fuf-

® y Corinth. xiii, 4—7.
ferings

the New Tefiament. 295

ferings and critical dangers, which they
bore from a love to their fellow crea-
tures.— Again, how infinitely different
‘was their behaviour under fufferings,
from the behaviour of a Fanatic!
They preached indeed their doétrines
with ardent courage and undaunted
firmnefs; but they no where courted
fufferings. Are they perfecuted in one
city? they flee to another. Are they
apprehended, and dragged before the
feat of juftice? they difcover a pra-
found reverence for the magiftracy ;
‘return the defired anfwers to eveny
-queftion ; declare the doétrines which
they preached with becoming and mo-
deft boldnefs; refute the falfe accu-
fations of their adverfaries; and ufe
“every means, which prudence or fore-
‘fight fuggeft, to conciliate their judges,
and make them inclined towards them.
And -was ‘all this ineffeétual ? «could
they not otherwife efcape condemation
than by renouncing. their . religion?

ee then,

296 The Credibility of

then, compofed and courageous; with
minds full of philanthropy and recon-
ciliation; and pouring forth fervent
prayers for the welfare of their
enemies and executioners, they fub-
mitted to death. It is only fuch a fe-
renity of mind, when the bitternefs of
affliction is felt; devoid of all obfti-
macy and contumacious difrepeét for
. others; and fuffering folely for the
love of truth, that can be named he-
roic courage and firmnefs of mind.—
In their whole fyftem of morals nothing
is found of morofe, gloomy feverity.
They pronounce mortifications and
-voluntary fufferings to be of no in-
portance in the fight of God’, but
rather folly and barbarous abfurdity*.
They know nothing of the monkith
virtues of thofe who call themfelves
more modern Chriftians; of voluntary
poverty, abftinence from matrimonial

ty Corinth, xiii. 3.
& Ephef. v. 29. Coleff. ii.
con-

the New Teftament. 297

connections, avoidance of focial fo-
cieties, and rejection of temporal. dig-
nities and honours. They no where
condemn the folicitation or poffeffion
of honours and wealth, or the enjoy-
anent of the pleafures which this world
affords: they only exhort Chriftians to
ufe thefe goods of the earth with
grateful hearts towards God; devoid
of every unfocial a&t of impurity, cru-
elty, or excefs; and for the welfare of
mankind in general’, Can any
maxims be conceived more fuitable, |
more advantageous to the human race,
than thofe which St. Paul delivers®¢
‘ Charge the rich of this world, that
they be not proud; and that they
place not their truft in. perifhable
riches, but in the Eternal God, who
‘plentifully provides for our enjoyment

} Romxiii. 16. xiv. 1 Corinth. vii. 1724. and
in the whole of the 8th chap. x. 2733. 1 Tim.
jv. I—5.

1 Tim, vie 1739.

of

298 ‘Lhe Credibility of
of the goods of the earth. That they
do good; be rich in good works; ge-
‘ferous, ‘ahd impart willingly; and
thereby affure themfelves of eternal
life.-And it is particularly worthy of
remark, that they did not preach this
moft enlivening and comfortable fyftem
‘of morals, like Seneca or Plato, pof-
feffed of all the enjoyments of life, but
under every — of sa heonnianat and
affliction’. i

The writers of the New “Tiiiaiemt
are, theréfore, far removed from the
pride of thinking themfelves the efpe-
cial favourites of God; they produce
‘with method and perfpicuity a con-
héG&ed, harmonious fyftem ‘of religion;
they are great advocates for written
‘revelation ; they infift on the neceffity
“of ‘their ‘religion, and condemn indeed
all fpirit of perfecution, but at the
fame time all religious indifference;

ny Tim. iv. 14. vis _37—19. Compare with
2 Corinth. iv. vi. xi.

8 the

ihe New Teftament. @p
the ‘céntral ‘point Of their fyfem of
thorals, ‘and‘of their eonda@, is ‘phi-
laiithropy, ‘ethbracing ‘and ‘promoting
the ‘happinefs of ‘all; they exhibit “un-
er ‘affli@ions ‘and tiinéiits a truly
heroic ‘courage; they ‘cenfure ‘all ‘ime-
Tanicholy “and gloom, recommend the
‘ufé and ‘enjoymént of ‘earthly ‘plea-
furés, and diré& ‘them ’to the nobleft
itn, ‘the ‘good of ‘human fociéty.—
‘They are confequently ‘diametrically
‘Oppofite to Fanati¢s °

SECT. Y.
‘They wére, ‘on the ‘contrary, Men of
Integrity.

THE writers of the New Tefament
Thave given ftrong ‘proofs of their in-
“tegrity. I have alreddy remarked ?,
“ae ‘See Lyttleton’s Converfion and Apoftlethip of St.
Paul, in Which this'is proved aniegincid in Fégard’ to
that Alpoftle.

P See above, 13, and following pages.
that

300 The Credibility of

that the ftyle of their writings, and the
choice of the events which they re-
late, contain ftrong arguments for their
honefty. But it may be neceflary in
this place to extend this examination
fomewhat further.—In the hiftorical
books written by Jewifh and heathen
contemporaries, who were not Chrif-
tians, many events of the Gofpel-
hiftory are confirmed. I will not delay
the reader by proving, that every thing
which the writers of the New Tefta-
ment cafually relate of the Roman
emperours, Auguftus, Tiberius, and
Claudius ; of the kings and confider-
able perfons among the Jews; of the
magiftracies and cuftoms of the Ro-
mans, Greeks, and Jews; of the civil
rights and conftitutions of the Jewifh
ftates; of the religious fyftems and
opinions which then exifted among
them—exaétly coincides with the. in-
formation of foreign hiftorians on .thefe
fubjeéts. Lardner has difcuffed this

fubjeét

the New Teftament. $01

fubjeGt in the firft part of his Credi-
bility of the Gofpel- -hiftory with extra-
ordinary labour, accuracy, and foli-
dity*, It is fufficient for’ my prefent
purpofe to fele& from’ the’ great ‘mats’
of events which he has produced, fome
of the principal, which either belong to
the hiftory of Chriftianity itfelf, or are
intimately conneéted with it... et
Of the Taxing, (more properly,-En-
rolment, amoypagn) which, according
to St. Luke’, compelled the Parents
of Jefus to leave Nazareth their place:
of refidence, and go to Bethlehem,
we find indeed no mention in foreign
writers *. But the Bs asi of Gamaliel,
which

4 In the fecond volume (firft edition) of the Credi.
bility of the Gofpel-hiftory:-or the faéts occafonally.
mentioned in the N. T., confirmed by paflages of An-
cient Authors, who were contemporary with our Sa-
. viour or his Apoftles, or lived near their time.

T ii, 15.

* The information itfelf of the Evangelift is ‘~w
very doubtful interpretation. It is uncertain whether

he

302 The Credibility of

which » is. given us. in, the Acts of the
Apoftles*‘, makes mention of an. en-
rolment" which happened at the. time
when Judas the Galilean excited a fe-
dition among, the Jews. And in Jo-
fephins 2 mf bad, that after the anita:

QO}. oO
he fpeaks oy a taxation of the fiche Roman empire, or
only of the awhole Fewi/b territory 5 ; (for yn may fignify
either world or country.) And the words urn 4
emroyenQn Mewre syeveTo nyenovevors@- rng Lvgras
Kenny, are tranflated by the commentators i in three
different ways: 1. This taxation was the ‘firkt when
Cyrenius was governour of Syria: 2. This taxation was
made before Cyrenius was governour of Syria: 3. This
taxation was the firft of thofe which were made by
Cyrenius (afterwards) governour of Syrig. Lardner
has treated moft amply of this matter, Credibility
of the G. H. Part I. vol. ii p. 1-188. 1 edit.
But what he afferts, p. 70, is very improbable ;_ that
the adminiftration of the oath to the Jews, which,
according to the information of Jofephus (Antiquit.
XVIT. cap. ii. § 6) happened at the time of Herod,
is the fame eyent as the enrolment of St. Luke: that
this affertion is unfounded is evidently feen by com-
paring together the two accounts.

tv. 34—39-

@ v. 37.

w Antiquit, XVIII. chap. i. §1. Pp, 869, $70»

ment

the New Feftament. 303

ment of Archelaus, Judea was made a
Roman province, and an enrolment
was appointed by Cyrenius,. then. Pre-
fident of Syria;.on which occafion a
certain Galilean, of _ the name of
Judas, excited the people not to fub-
mit to this order*. Let us compare
_ the fpeech of Gamaliel, in the Aéts of
the Apoftles, ‘After this man (viz.
Theudas, v. 36.) rofe up Judas of Ga-
lilee, in the days of the enrolment,
and drew away much ‘people. after
him.” How exaét and true is_ this
narration !——St. Matthew relates’ an
action of King Herod, which, in refpeé
to cruelty, has fcarcely a parallel in
hiftory. .He commanded all the male
children in Bethlehem and the neigh-
bouring country, who were a year old
and under, to be put to death ; becaufe
he:had been informed, that in that place
was born one who was King of, the
= De bello fudaico, Lib, VII. ¢. viii, §. 2. p. 422.
vii, 136, |
Jews.

$04 The Credibility of
Jews. This appears to us, who are’
accuftomed ‘to the finer feelings of
Chriftianity, almoft incredible. But
fet us compare the charaéter of this
prince, as drawn by Jofephus, with the
above-mentioned faét, aud we: fhall
find that his action is perfeétly agree-
able to his ruling fentiments and
mode ‘of thinking, and no more than
we fhould expect from a man of a
fimilar charaéter. Herod had no
common underftanding ‘and ‘talents ;
but was biaffed by an unlimited and in-
fatiable ambition. ‘This ambition urged
him on to do every thing, without
diftin€tion, whether it were vicious or
had the femblance of virtue, which
tended to gratify his ruling paffion.
Hence arofe in his charaéter that” he-
terogeneous mixture of affable beha-
viour, {plendid expence, tendernefs to-
wards his friends, and fpecious under-
takings on the one fide,—fu{picion, ra-
paciouinefs, implacability, . irreligion,
in-

the New Teftament. 305

inhumanity, and tiger-like cruelty on
the other. He was refolute and daring
in his undertakings; mild, converfible
and agreeable in his external beha-
viour; generous in matters which
tended to the advantage, delight or
fplendour of the public; and in out-
ward appearance willing to do good to
all. Yet this fame man opened for:
himfelf a path to the throne by the
murder of Antigonus and Hyrcanus,
the only remaining princes of the Mac-
cabean family; the latter, who was his
near relation and had faved his life,
he affaffinated with his own hand, and
of the former he procured the death
by means of bribery. He complied
with the idolatrous worfhip of the
Romans; plundered his fubjeéts; and
was fufpicious and jealous of his beft
friends, Ariftobulus, the brother of
his wife Mariamne; was murdered by
his direGlions, only becaufe the people
at Jerufalem fhewed fome affection for

x his

306 The Credibility of

his perfon. Mariamne herfelf fuffered
a public execution, which was foon
followed by that of her mother Alex-
andra. He put to death, im cold
blood, a great number of the moft
confiderable perfons among the Jews;
and even his own promifing fons Alex-
ander and Ariftobulus were ftrangled
by his orders, becaufe he fufpeéted that
they might ftrive to obtain the fovereign
power’, But the moft horrible of all

CLS ae was

® Jofephus, Antiquit. Judaic. Lib. XIV. cap. xvi,

§. 4. p. 737- edit. Haverkamp. XV. cap. iii §. 3.
p- 745. XV. cap. vi. §. 2. p. 756. cap. vii. §. 4—6.
p> 761—763; ibid. §. 8. p. 763, 764. XVI. cap. xi,
§. 6. p. 822. The laft moft painful illnefs with which
Herod was afflicted, is pronounced by Jofephus to have
been a punifhment of the juft God for the crimes of
the king, XVII. cap. vi. §. 5. p. 845, and he con-
cludes the account of his life with this painting ;
CYNE WLS LEY EbG TavTas Omorws nab Ooyns [LEY NOTWYy
‘ugeicowy Of re dima, Lib. XVII. cap. viii. §. 1.
‘p- 848. The Jewifh Ambaffadors, who, after his
death, requefted the Empetour Auguftus, rather to
make their country a Roman province, than to place
it under the dominion of the Herodian family, affirmed,
§ that

the New Teftament. _ 307
was the laft aétion with which’ he de-
parted out of the world, and from
which he wifhed to eftablifh another
monument to his memory, and immor-
talize his name. In his laft illnefs he
commanded all the principal people of
the nation to affemble themfelves at
Jerufalem, where he then lay. - At
their arrival they were fhut up in the
Hippodrome, and the dying king gave
his fifter Salome’ and her hufband
Alexas the following order, ‘“ As foon
as the breath is out of my body, let them
all be put to death, that all Judea may
be compelled to lament at my de-
ceafe.” ‘ With tears in his eyes, (fays
. Jofephus’,) ‘he beget 6 them by their
love

‘that he had been a moft cruel tyrant, and that the
nation had fuffered more through him alone, than it
had during many preceding centuries.” Jof.: De B. J.
1x. 6. 2. p. 156. Haverc. rf
2 Antiquit. Judaicar. Lib. XVII. cap. vi. §.°5.
p- 345, 846; De Bello Jud. Lib. I. cap.-xxxiii> §. 6.
‘p» 141. A thort time before the breath departed from.
oe Be isis

308 = =—- Lhe Credibility of

:

love for him, and by their fidelity to
God, not to refufe him this laft ho-
nour.’ In fuch a ravenous beaft in
human form it was one of the fmalleft
crimes’, if deaf to the voice of pity
and humanity, and unaffeéted by the
innocence of the children and the
poignant grief of their difconfolate
mothers, he inhumanly dragged them
from the arms of their parents, and
put them to death with the forocity
of a tger’+—St Matthew informs

us,

Wis body, Antipater allo, ‘his eldeft fon, was put to
death by his ‘command, Bécatile, it ‘being believed that
the king his father ‘Was dead, the was about to take
apon hisafelf the'fucceffion. Antiquit. XVII. cap. vii.
Pp 3475 and, De Bello Jud. I. cap. 33. §. 7. p- 14le
“> The charaéter of this miferable man, drawn by
the hand of a matter, is to be found in Sterne’s
Sermons.
¢ Although Jofephus -has not ‘related this hiftory,
of “which omiffion: the caufe isnot difficult “to be dif-
covered, (fee Lardner’ s Credibility of'the G.H. Paretd.
vol. ii. ~p. 194196. ift‘edit.) "yet the whole ‘character
which ‘he ‘aferibes to this Jewith King, as the ‘moft
vevidént confirmation of the barbarous ‘deed mentioned
by.

the New Teftament. $09
us‘, that Jefus had beéni in Egypt:
and this is confirmed even by Celfus

by the Evangelift. Macrobius, a heathen writer of
the fourth century, relates of Auguftus, ‘ Quum au-
diffet inter pueros, guos in Syria Herodes Rex Fudaorum
intra bimatuem jufit interfeci, filium quoque ejus ote
cifum, ait, ‘* Melius eft Herodis porcum effe quam
filium.”” Saturnal. Lib. II. cap. iv. Now although
Macrobius is far too modern to be produced as a valid
evidence in this matter, and his ftory is magnified with
dn erroneous circumftance; yet the cited paflage ferves
to prove, how univerfally notorious was the murder of
the children in Bethlehem, which was committed by
Herod’s orders,—Voltaire, either from ignorance and
inconfideratenefs, or from difhonefty, afferts (Diction,
philofoph. articl. Chriftianifme), that 14,000 children
muft have loft their lives in this maffacre. If this
were true, the filence of Jofephus would be truly a
very important objection to the veracity of St. Mat
thew’s narrative: and with this view Voltaire makes
the affertion, who always fhews himfelf an inveterate
enemy of revealed, and not rarely of natural, religion
alfo.—But Bethlehem was a very finall place; dcaxcely
two thoufand perfons exifted in it and in its dependant
diftrié&. Now the male children alone were put to
death; confequently in this maffacre not more than
fifty at moft were flain. In the defcription of the life
of fuch a tyrant this was fo trifling an aét of cruelty,
that it was but of {mall confequence in the hiftory of
his bloody government. See Biifching’s ‘ Harmony ef
the evangelifts,' I, 216. 217. of the original.
4 Chap. ii
x 3 himfelf,

310 The Credibility of

himfelf, who takes occafion from it toe
throw out the accufation, that he: had
there learned the arts of magic °.—That
Jefus was crucified under Pontius Pi-
late, the Roman Governour in Judea,
is likewife related by Tacitus'.—The
account of John the Baptift, who was
unjuftly put to death by Herod An-
tipas the Tetrarch *, is found alfo in
Jofephus*. The coincidence is re-
markable. The Jewifh hiftorian -re-
lates that Herod had married his bro-
ther Philip’s wife: and this very cir-

e See Origen’s work againft Celfus.

f Annal. Lib. XV. cap. xliv. p.279. edit. An-
twerp. 1607. fol. Nero put the guilt of the terrible
fire at Rome, as Tacitus here relates, on the Chriftians.
© Auétor nominis ejus, continues he, (namely, Chrif-
tiani) Chriftus, qui Tiberio imperitante per procura-
torem. Pontium Pilatum fupplicio affectus erat.” The
agreement ‘of many more circumftances of this laft
fuffering of Jefus with the accounts of foreign writers
is fhewn by Lardner in his Credibility of the G.H.
p- 1. vol. i. 299 and following pages. 1ft edit.

& Matth xiv. 1-12.
bh Antigq. Lib. XVIII. cap. v. §. 1, 2. p. 883,
334.

cumftance

the New Teftament. 3ii
¢umftance is afferted by St. Matthew
to have been the caufe of John’s exe-
cution. Immediately after he informs
_ us, that the Jews pronounced the over-
throw which Herod had fuffered, ta
have been a divine punifhment for his
having flain John, who was furnamed
the Baptift. Kreve yao ravrov “Hewdns,
ayolov avden xa THs Isdaiss XEAEVOVTOy
HPETHY EMACKBVTAS HAE TH ~eG@ HAANAZS -
Sixasocvwn xas 7G ov. @tov evesac ew |
peeves Bamricny cuvievas. Lor Herod had
put to death this man; a pious perfon :
who exhorted the Jews to practice vir-
tue, to fhew fidelity te one another
and reverence towards God, and with
fuch hearts to come to be baptized. In
exaét coincidence are defcribed the
doétrines and behaviour of John by the
Evangelifts’.--St. Luke curforily relates *,
that the Emperour Claudius banifhed

i Matth., iii. 1. ii. 5-1. Mark i. pad Tr Luke iii.
t—I4.
& A&ts xviii. 1, 2.

x A the

312 ‘The Credibility of

the Jews from Rome: and Suetonius
gives us the fame account’, Judaos,
fays he, impulfore Chrefto affidue tu-
multuantes Roma expulit™.—The per-
fon whom St. Peter raifed from the
dead at Joppa, was named Tabitha or
Dorcas": and it appears from Jofe-
phus that this name (which feems to
imply fomething tender) was. a€tually at
that time in common ufe*:According
to St. Luke’s information ® a great
dearth prevailed throughout all Ju~
4 in the reign of Claudius: Jofe-
phus fpeaks of the fame, and defcribes:
it as fo terrible, that a great multitude:

® Vita Claudii.

m Comp. Lardner’s Jewifh and heathen teftimonies,
vol. i. |

a A ik. 96. .

© See Ottii Animadverfiones im Jofephum, Oper.
edit. Haverc. vol. ii. p. 323.

P Aéts xi. 28, 29.

9 “Oan OLX LEV is fometimes ufed in fcriptural
language for aparticular country only. See Lardnér’s
Credib. of the G. H. Part I. vol. i. 521 and following:
pages. aft, edit.

of

the New Teftament. 313

of perfons died of hunger .—The tra-
gical end of King Herod Agrippa® is
related by St. Luke* and Jofephus *
with fo much harmony, that had the
latter been a Chriftian, one would
have certainly believed that he intended
to write a commentary on that narra-
tive. This haughty monarch put off
the Tyrians and Sidonians, who folicited
@ peace with him, until a certain day”.

And

z Antiq. XX. cap. ii. § 6. p. 960. coll. cap. v.
4.2. p. 965.

® This Herod was the fon of Ariftobulus, and
grandfon of Herod the Great. By the favour of the
emperours Caligula and Claudius he was raifed to
royal dignity; and almoft all the lands which his
grand-father had poffeffed were by degrees beftowed
upon him. Jofephus Antiq. XVIII. cap. vii. §. 10»
p- 896, 897. XIX. cap. v. §. 1. pr 943-

t Acts xii. 20—-23.

* Antiq. Lib. XIX. cap. vill. §. 2. p. 650, 651.

w Jofephus has not mentioned this particular cir-
cumftance. But he informs us, that the termination
of the king’s life fucceeded a feftal day, which had
been appointed in honour of the emperour. From this
circumftance we may conceive why Herod put off the

the

514 The Credibility of ©

And upon a fet day* Herod, . ar-
rayed in royal apparel ’, fat Upon
his throne, and made an oration unto
them. And the people gave a shout,
faying, It is the voice of a God, and
not of aman*! And immediately the
angel of the Lord fmote him*, becaufe

the ambafladors from Tyre arid Sidon to that exprefs
day; namely, that he might fhew himfelf wich fo much
greater pomp to the people.

% Jofephus determines it more particularly. Ie
was the fecond day of the Feftival, which. was cele-
brated at Czfarea in honour of the emperour. . - .

y A tobe embroidered with filver, from which-rays.
of the fun refle&ted a dazzling fplendor, which fet all
the fpeftators in aftonifhment. Jofephus. .

% His flatterers (fays Jofephus who prolongs this
fhout to an improbable extent) named him @ God, and
éntreated him to be propitious to them, faying, Here-
tofore we have honoured you as aman: but now we ac«
knowledge, that you are ety above mortal nae
ture.

4 Jofephus has inferted here a Gipertiitious flory :
that Herod perceived an owl fitting on a certain cord over
his head, and confequently held it to be an unfortunate
omen. The faét.itfelf he thus relates: that imme~,
diately afterwards the king was feized with a violent.
illnefs, and caried to his palace.

6 ia he

the New Tefiament. . 315.

he gave not. God the glory”: and hewas
eaten of worms‘, and. gave up the ghoft*.
Both. hiftorians relate the faé, as ‘to
the chief particulars, in the fame man-
‘ner., St. Luke defcribes the pride of
the king, as well as the nature. of his:
illnefs more circumftantially; and omits:
the fuperftitious addition of the owl,
which is related by Jofephus. A proof,
that St. Luke furpaffes in fidelity, ac-
curacy, and judgment even this learned
hiftorian of the Jews.—When St.: Paul,
in an uproar which the Jews at Jeru-’
falem excited againft him, was taken.
prifoner, the Roman Chiliarch, ac-:

b The very fame caufe is affigned by Jofephus,
namely, becaufe Herod “had not punifhed the snc
phemous flattery of the people.

€ Jofephus has not defcribed the illnefs fo circum~’
flantially. ‘The king, fays he, felt violent pains about
the heart, and in the bowels. St. Luke determines the
caufe more {cientifically,. The pain in the bowels pro-
ceeded from worms, by which he was eaten, . -

a After he had been continually tormented during
five days by dreadful: pains in his bowels, heexpired.
Jofephus. | F

‘ cording

316 The Credibility of

cording to St. Luke’s relation, de-
manded of him, Art not thou that
Egyptian, who a fhort time ago, madeft
an uproar and leddeft out into the wil-
dernefs four thoufand murderers*? Jo-
fephus explains to us this hiftory, which
St. Luke has mentioned only cafually*
An Egyptian*® pretended during the
government of Felix (confequently at
the time mentioned by St. Luke) that
he was a prophet; led with him ito
the wildernefs a multitude of thirty
thoufand men; and marched againft
Jerufalem, promifing, that the walls
of the city fhould fall down im-
mediately at his command; but was
attacked by Felix, and efcaped with a
fmall part of his army.—Of this re-
markable harmony with foreign hif-

© As xxi. 38.

4 De bello Judaico, Lib. II. cap. xiii. §. 5. p.177,
x78. Antiq. Lib. XX. cap. viii. Ԥ.'6. p. 972, 973.

@ Jofephus alfo has nowhere given us the name of

this Impoftor, but only fpoken of Him under the appel-
lation of * the Egyptian.*

torian?

the New Teftament. 317

torians I will produce only two further
examples, and thefe on account of
their oppofite charaéters.—St. Paul, ac-
cording to the Aéts of the Apofiles*,
in his fpeech before the governour
Felix and his wife Drufilla difcourfes
on the virtues of juftice and chaftity,
and on the judgment hereafter to be
holden on men for the violation of
them. It muft appear furprifing to a
refleGting reader why the Apofile did
not here fpeak on the fundamental
articles of Chriftianity, on the refur-
reétion of Jefus, &c.; and what rea-
fon could have induced him to fe-
dJe&t the above-mentioned virtues in
particular for the fubjeét of his dif-
courfe. Tacitus and Jofephus clear
up this difficulty, and explain the caufe.
According to their information the
charafter of Felix is infamous, on ac-
fount of the extortions which he had

h xxiv. 24) 25.
come

318 The Credibility of
committed in Judea, and’of’ the’ fean-
dalous commerce’ in which he lived
with Drufilla, the wife of’ King Azizus,
whom he feduced and ‘married,’ while
her hufband was ftill alive’, “With this
‘charaéter the narration ‘of St: Luke is
perfeétly concordant. St: Paul {peaks
before Felix and:Drufilla ‘of’ the judg
‘ments’ of God: on’ injuftice and” un-
chaftity. “What :could have been more
terrible to fuch an'audience? Felix trem
bled at the difcourfe! Neverthélefs he
held feveral conferences with the Apof-
tle, becaufe he harboured the'mean
defign of extorting money from him*.
What elfe could be expe&ted from a

i Tacitus hiftoriarum,, Lib. V. cap. ixe!p. 428.
edit. cit. Claudius... Judzam provinciam equitibus
Romanis aut libertis permifit, e quibus Antonius
Felix, per omnem fevitiam ac libidinem jus regium
feryili ingenio exercuit, Drufilla Cleopatrz et Antonii
nepte in matrimonium accepta.. The hiftory of this
Drufilla is related by Jofephus more circumftantially,
Antiq. Lib. XX. cap, vii. §. 1,2. p. 969, 970.

k Ver. 26,

man

~

: the New Teftament. 319

man who lived in the public exercife
of fuch violent injuftice and adulterous
marriage? This hiftory in a two-fold
manner confirms the credibility of the.
{criptural writers; it fhews how little
St. Paul» fuppreffed the truth even
when his temporal intereft feemed to
require it;; and: how. accurately) St. -
‘Luke’s narratives harmonize with the
accounts: of foreign hiftorians.—How
*-honourable, on the other hand, is- the
conduét which’ St: Luke’ ‘attributes to
Gallio, the Roman proconful in Achaia!
What juftice, impartiality, prudence,
and mild difpofition fhine forth in his
anfwer to the accufation of the Jews
againft St. Paul! “If it concerned an
unjuft: or wicked aétion, reafon would
demand that»I fhould fupport you.
But as the conteft concerns words,
names, and your law, it is your own
pufinefs. I will be no judge in fuch —

! As xviii, 14—16,
matters.”’

320 The Credibility of

matters,” And this agrees exaétly with
the honourable picture of him which
foreign writers have drawn”.

Such a perfeét coincidence with fo-
reign contemporary hiftorians in fuch .
trifling events, and in circumftances
which are related only curforily, efta-
blifhes not only the authenticity of
thefe writings, but is alfo a palpable
proof of the integrity and credibility
of their authors. Not lefs remarkable
are the charadéers of the Gofpel-hif-
tory, whom we find numerous and
very diftiné. The writers are evi-
dently devoid of every fpecies of art;
yet the perfons whom they introduce
act fo naturally and confiftently, that
we feel they are charatters drawn from
life.—Pilate is convinced that the po-
litical accufations againft Jefus are
perfectly groundlefs; he attempts re-

’ m Nemo mortalium uni tam dulcis eft quam hic
omnibus. Seneca, nat. queft, 1,4. Tacitus Annal.
Lib. XV. extr. Ps 290.

peatedly

the New Teftament. $21

peatedly to acquit him; yet not only
againft his own conviction, but veven
againft his inclination, fuffers him to
tbe feourged, and even crucified: and
all from the dread of being accufed to
Cefar by the Jews. What a ftriking
- portrait of an unprincipled courtier! —
who moreover (as was the cafe of Pi- ©
date, according to Tacitus) had been
guilty of many exattions, and therefore
found it neceffary to cover one att of
injuftice and cruelty by another.
Judas Heariot commits a crime of the
fouleft nature; he betrays his mafter,
benefa&tor and friend for ‘the paltry
fum of.a few pieces of filver. Notwith-
fianding the conciliatory, mild and
amiable warning of his Lord he re-
mains fixed in his barbarous determi-
nation, puts himfelf at the head of the
murderers, goes boldly into the pre-
fence of his friend, and ufes the mof
tender mark of friendfhip as the fignal
of treachery. The language of his |

ig ate. friend

1392 The Credibility of

friend which might have been thought
ftufficient toc-have melted the moft frozen
heart, Judas, betrayeft thou me—with
a kifs? even this doesnot make. him
alter his refolution. | His condué pto-
‘bably, as.we are taught: by the event,
-was influenced by a hope; that his Lord -
-would find means to-liberate himfelf by
thofe miraculous powers, which he had
feen him fovoften exhibit. And when this
‘expe€tation proved falfe, he proceeds to.
-the magiftracy of the Jews; confeffes his
“crime, declares the innocence of Jefus,
returns the money, ‘and ‘hangs himfelf.
\A frightful feene! But how well does it
. -harmonize’ with the charaéter of a co-
‘vetous wretch as Judas was, according
-to the Evangelifts,—and of a man who
‘had been for fome years conftant eye-
witnefs of the miniftry and attions of
-Jefus! A’perfon of the) fineft talents
-could fcarcely contrive a deceit {o.con-

- fiftently: at was certainly totally impof-

‘efible tovone whofe mind was. devoid of
Basil z cultivation,

the New Teftament. 393

cultivation,. and.whofe employment
from infancy.had been the bufinefs of a
fifherman. © ay | te

_ St. Peter is involved in a crime almoft
fimilar.. But the event is perfeétly
different. A look of his friend recalls
him; and awakens the nobler fenti-
ments of repentance, and confidence in
the favour of his Lord... How accu-
rately does this accord with the fource
of his crime, as given by the’ Evan-
gelift! He finned not from an efta-
blifhed and predominant. evil incli-
nation; but from temerity and inor-
dinate paffion.—Among all the writers
of the New Teftament none ufe argtt-
- ments drawn from the love of. honour
“more: copidufly,; no one warns againft
pride” more ftrongly, or exhorts more
forcibly to heroic courage ‘than St
Peter; this Peter. who is. continually.
diftinguifhed by the Evangelifts for re-

ame

a Pet. vy. 5, 6,

¥ 2 ~ folution,

324 the Credibility of

folution, heroic courage, and love of
honour.

St. John alfo at firft deferts his
Mafter, but foon returns, follows him
“jato the palace of the High Prieft, ac-
companies him to the crofs, remains
there until he had expired, and takes
upon himfelf the duties of a fon to-
wards the mother of his friend. And
dearcely is the rumour heard that the
grave is empty, but he is one of the
firftwho haften thither. We could ex-
pe& no-other condué& from a perfon
ewho poffeffed a heart fo tender, fo fen-
‘fible; and fo truly affe&tionate towards
Jefus, as is attributed to St. John in

“the evangelical hiftory.
’ o$t. Thomas, after the refurreGtion of
Jefus, behaves not lefs agreeably to
his accuftomed refolution, which de-
generated almoft to obftinacy. We
fee here the very fame perfon who for-
merly, when all the others oppofed Je-
fus’ return to Judea, alone arofe and en-
Qe couraged

the New Teftament. 325

couraged his fellow difciples*, Let us
alfo go, that we may die with him?,
And lafily, by what means were the
Apoftles, unlettered fifhermen, enabled
to draw fuch a charatter as is the cha-
racter of Jefus; fince it has not a pa-
rallel either in the hiftory of their own
country or of any other? Wherefore
did they attribute in particular fuch
mild, patient virtues. to. their Meffiah,-
in whom the whole nation expected an
enterprifing and fuccefsful warrior?
Many farther proofs of Integrity of
the like kind may be found in their
books.—The writers of the New Tef-
tament difcover the utmoft abhorrence
of the crime of deceit and difhonefty ;
and preach an integrity which does
not allow men te utter even an indif-

@ John xi. 16,

p See Secker’s Sermons: and alfo Lardner on the
internal marks of the credibility of the N. T. in the
‘ Memoirs of the life and writings of the late reverend
Nath, Lardner.” London. 1769,

xy 3 ferent

326 The Credibility of

ferent untruth®.— They deliver cons’
vincing proofs thatthey themfelves pat.
fefied -this virtue, ‘which they inculcate
on others under the penalty of the di-
vine wrath. They no where break out
in their own praife; and when St. Paul
was under the neceflity of relating his
extraordinary endgwments before the
_falfe apoftles, with what timid modefty
does he fpeak'"! They do not fupprefs
even their own fajlings; they relate the
aftonifhment and ftupidity of the Apof-.
tles at the difcourfes of Jefus‘; the
_difgraceful infidelity which they mani-
fefted towards him under his’ fuffer-
ings'; the denial of St. Peter"; his dif
fimulation at Antioch”; the indifcreet

q Rom. xii. 9. Ephef. iv. 25. x Peter i. 22,
ii, 23, 22 : ;
© 2 Corinth. xii.

_ § Luke xviii. 31-34,

t Matth. xxvi. 56. .

v Matth. xxvi. 69—-75.

w Gal. ii, 1321,

and

the New Tefiament. 327

and: furious zeal -of St. Paul*.—They
eftablith no. feparate fects. No one of
them puts himfelf at the head of a
party. “On the contrary, they caution
mén moft earneftly againft all party
fpirit; and unanimoufly exhort them
to receive and to reverence no other
than the invifible Jefus as their only
- Head, their Teacher, and their Re-
»,deemer”. — They relate without dif-
guife faéts which evil-minded perfons
might ‘eafily: pervert to the difadvan- .
tage of their hiftory and doétrine ; That,
fe inftance, the difeiples of Jefus
could not heal a fick man’; that Jefus,
during his paffion, had endured vio-
lent forrow, and agony *;,that he per- -
formed no miracles at Nazareth’; that
on the day, of; Pepreeoft fome of the
ipecietors accufedithe’ Apoftles of druns

x Actsix. Rom. ix. 2.
y x Corsi: 1o—16, &c.:
z Matth. xvii. 16.
* Matth. xxvi. 38, 39s.
> Mark, vi. 4, Se* |
¥ 4 kennefs ;

$28 The Credibility of

kennefs*; that Paul. and: Barnabas
quarrelled and feparated*... If. their
caufe had been’ an impofture, they
would indifputably have fuppreffed
every thing of this nature.—Again, the
dottrines which they preached were
direétly. hottile to the: ruling tafte of
their times, and to the darling paf>
fions of all mankind: the overthrow of
idolatrous worthip; the abrogation of »
the Mofaic law; falvation through the
mediation of one who had been cru»
cified; the extirpation of all jnordis
nate and extravagant appetites; a per-
feétly fpotlefs and heroic courage.
And the whole manner in which they
exhibited their doétrines and hiftory
bears the vifible ftamp of the greateft
honefty. Without any anxiety to prove
the truth of their narratives; without
any rhetorical arts to recommend them
to others; without any artful and con-

© A&ts ii. 345 yr é@ Aéts xv. 39.
cealed

ee ee ee ee ee er eee ee ee
= .

Na

a gn ee ed

the New Tefiament. 329

cealed obfcurity, they mention their
hiftory as a matter which muft be either
known to all their contemporaries, or
which could be examined and its truth
or falfhood difcovered without much
trouble. The confidence and fure con-
viétion with which they write is par-
ticularly apparent where they {peak of
the exercife of their miraculous powers.
They relate thefe aftonifhing fatts
without any ornaments of language,
or oratorical flights, but with the moft
common expreffions, and in the moft
concife and fimple manner ; when they
fpeak of them, they bring to the re-
membrance of their contemporaries the
artful’ religious-deceits with which the
heathen priefts impofed on the people,
and led them like irrational animals‘;
they appeal to thefe their fupernatural
gifts in oppofition to thofe which they
fharply reproved; and this, when ad-

© x Cor. xii. 1, 2.
7

dreffing

330 The Credibility of

dreffing themfelves to communities im

which they had many perfonal ene-

mies‘. In fhort, they {peak with fuch
certainty, with fo much felf-conviétion,
and with fuch confidence, of the
truth of their hiftory, that affuredly we
can no longer confide in any hiftorian:
whatever, if we entertain the leaft ;
doubt concerning the honefty of the
writers of the New Teftament.

SECT. fis

Li hey relate Events which hie in

their own Times.

THE writers of the New Teftament
relate their hiftory a¢ a time when it
was almoft impofiible to have forged it.
—They inform us not of events which
happened at the other extremity of the
world many ages ago: as that a perfon
perfectly unknown to pofterity had,

£4 Cor. xii xiv. Gal, ii, 1g.
many
ro}

the New Tefament. 33) .

many centuries before their times, per-
formed wonderful things’ in Britain.
No, ‘on the contrary—at Jerufalem
they relate events which they affert. to
have happened at” Jerufalem.—Events
which took place in the times, and, in
part, before the eyes, of perfons who
were then alive *.—Events which tended
to injure, and refle&t difhonour on, the
principal perfons in the city.—Thefe
events they relate not in obfcure cor-
“ners of the town, in the prefence of
one or two infignificant perfons: ‘but
in public places, in the fchools of the
Jews, before the higheft tribunal of the
nation. In the courts of juftice of the
-Jewifh kings and Roman governours
they relate—that Jefus, who in the
prefence of all the people and of the
chief and moft learned men- of their
nation. had proved himfelf by miracu-
Jous aétions to be the long expeéted

Meffiah,

332° The Credibility of

Meffiah, had given to the human race
the moft noble and falutary doGtrines,
and led a moft holy, innocent, and
beneficent life, had been perfecuted
with ferocious cruelty by the chiefs of
the people, until they brought him to
the crofs; that this fame Jefus, never-
thelefs, a few days after his death had
arifen, and had been feen at Jerufalem
by many perfons. This the Apoftles
avow freely, publicly, and in the pre-
fence of men who flourifhed at the
time they affert their hiftory to have
happened. They are thrown into pri-
fon, laid in irons, fcourged, fome of
them put to death, and the others
threatened with afimilar fate. Butnota
fingle perfon arifes to fhew the falfhood
of their narrative.—They not only re-
late this viva voce, but alfo publifh it
in writings, addreffed to places where
confiderable Jewifh communities then
exifted; and at atime when they uni-

verfally nia the fpread of Chrif-
- tlanity

2°

the New Teftamént. 338

tianity with the greateft violence.—
Four men publifh accounts of thefe
events at different times. None of the
fucceeding ,hiftorians. would. certainly
ever have ventured to have laid them
again before the public, if the narra-
tive of the preceding had already been
acknowledged falfe.—And: this their
hiltory is the relation of public and
very interefting events,of a. tendency
no lefs important than thereformation
of the whole exifting world.—A man
muft not only be deceived, or anoto-
rious impoftor, to utter falfhoods under
fuch circumftances, but abfolutely m-
- fane. We mutt, therefore, ‘pronounce
the writers of the New Teftament
either to have been out’ of their fenfes;
—or grant—that they did‘ not forge
their narrative, but, as to themfelves,
were perfe@tly: convinced ofits truth.

SECT,

S34 The Credibility. of

SECT. VII.
They appeal to notorious proofs. —

HAD they not been convinced of
the truth of what they relate, but im-
poftors,—they would by no means have ©
appealed to fuch proofs as depend
only on the organs of fenfe, and which
might have been ea/ily evamined by any,
even the moft fimple perfon. | In order
to prove the truth of their hiftory and
doétrine, they do not appeal, like Ma-
-homet, to feeret vifions of fpirits, noc-
turnal journies to heaven, or things
which, as he pretended, took place in
fecret.—They appeal to AZirales which
they had performed in the prefence of
their auditors, and in the midft of
large communities. ‘ My preaching
among you confifted not in the fub-
tile difcourfes of fophiftry, but in
proofs of the miraculous power of the

Holy

the : Ni CW. Tefiament. | 335

Holy Ghoft".=God has evinced: that
this doétrine came from Him, through
miracles and. thr ough a variety of mi-
— raculous gifts .’—-And yet more—They
affert. that they had even. imparted. to
their hearers the power. of working
miracles; that. only by, laying. their
hands on them.they had enabled them
to. fpeak fluently . foreign . languages
which they had never learned,to heal the
fick by a‘mere word,’ and even to pro-
phefy. . ‘I, who have given you the
miraculous. gifts of the.Holy Ghoft,
and wrought miracles among you, have
I preached to you the law of Mofes,
or the do€trine of faiths ?—To one of
you. is given the gift of languages, to
another the gift of healing fickneffes,
: toa. third yet other miraculous powers*.’

h I di lis 45.66

i Heb. ii. 3, 4. See alfo 2 Cor. xii. r2. Galati iii, §.
x Theff. i. ¢.

k Galat. ili. 5.

ee tee

336 The Credibility of

St. Paul appeals in the prefence of
_ large communities, at Corinth, a town
of confiderable confequence, and much
frequented; in Galatia; and before
Jewith converts, who were by no means
well difpofed towards him; before com-
iey im which were his moft bitter
netiires, who had » a€tually formed
themfelves into a party againft him; in
Epiftles, wherein he gives them fharp
reproofs,—appeals to miracles which
he had performed before them ; and to
miraculous. gifts, which he had im-
parted, and which continued to exift
among them. Still more than all ‘this,
he himfelf announces, in his firft Epif-
the to the Corinthians, a new miracle.
which he would perform, in proof of |
his divine miffion, on an inceftuous
perfon, though at a diftance, by in-
fliéting on him a fevere difeafe™.—
‘Now, in thefe cafes, deceit or fanati-

é

@ 2 Cor. ve 3 Se
cifm

the New Teftanent. 337
cifm is abfolutely impoffible. For,
notwithftanding thefe circumftances, it
would have been certainly impoffible
for the Apoftlé éver to have perfuaded —
the Corinthians, Galatians, and He-
_ brews’ that they could fpeak foreign
languages, with which they in faét had
no acquaintance; that they could heal
the fick, whom they in faét could not
heal; or that the inceftuous perfon
was fallen into a fevere illnefs, when
they knew him to be perfectly wells
St. Paul and the other writers of the
New Teftament, muft have been abfo-
lutely out of their fenfes if they had
fpoken in this manner without founs
dation and truth: And fuppofing that’
they had done fo, like the modern
pretenders to infpiratioti, who in
London promifed to raife the dead to
life; then the fame efie¢ts would have
followed in the former cafe, which
happened in the latter. They would »
have been confideréd as vifionaries and

Zz. ™ madmen, -

$38 The Credibility of

madmen, their religion as abfurdity
and impofture. Now as this did not
happen, but on the contrary their per-
fons and religion found fuch credit and
extenfive reception, this faét is there-
foré.a perfeétly convincing and incon-
trovertible proof,—I might juftly affert,
of the Aiforical certainty of their mix
racies, and of the divinity of their re-
ligion; but here 1 content myfelf with

faying-~of the entire credibility of thefe
IneENs

N

SECT. VIII.

z “Qs had nothing to expe® but lemporal
difadvantages.

AND what was. there which, could
have inftigated them to, forge thefe
circumftances, and to propagate them

with fuch perfeverance?— What had
they to. expeét from. their evidence?
A miferable life; bitter railleries and

2 Se fcorn:

the New Tefeament. 939
feorn from the philofophers of their —
time; cruel perfecutions from the
Jews, from the heathen priefts, mer-
chants, and magiftracy, For the. hif-
_ tory which, they publithed muft necef>
farily have appeared abfurd to witlings
and imaginary philofophers; and bad
a tendency not lefs important, than the
entire overthrow of the whole idolatrous
worthip of the Gentiles, and the abo-
lition of the religion of the Jews.—
‘But, it may be urged, were not thefe
-eonfequences of their preaching un-
expected? No: they themfelves fore-
faw that their doftrine would be ridi-
euled by the philofophers* ef their
time, and perfecuted by the powerful
with the fword and the crofs*%.

4 Rom. viii. gg-—99, 4 Cor H¥. 196

Z 2 SECT.

340 The Credibility of

SECT. IX,

They fuffered for the truth of their
narration every thing, even death.
—And brought many of their con-
temporaries to the fure convidiion of

wats truth.

AFTER. all that has been faid,
fhould any fufpicion of difhonefty full
remain, it muft inftantly vanifh when
we refleét that thefe witnefles fuffered
fo many affli€tions and fufferings; fuch
bitter and mortifying affronts; many
of them the moft grievous torments and
the mott painful death with fuch com-
pofure and_ truly heroic tranquillity,
for the fake of their evidence, and
{till continued to fupport. it even to
their. -laft. breath,—and that by their
teftimony, they fo certainly convinced
a vaft number of their contemporaries,
who, without any trouble, could have

- proved

the NewTefiament. 341
proved the’ truth’ or falfhood of their
hiftory, that ‘even thefe likewife fa-
crificed their temporal happinefs and
their lives to its truth—During «the
lifetime of fome of them, that is, before
the conclufion of the firft century; nu-
merous communities of Chriftians were
already formed in all the three. parts of
the then known world. ;» Their doétrine:
found great fupport»in Afia, at Jeru-'
falem, Antioch, Ephefus, Smyrnaj>La-'
odicea, Cefarea, &c.: in Africa; ati
Alexandria: in Europe, at’ Rome >the
metropolis of the world, Corinth, Thef-'
falonica, Philippi: and in many other.
great, civilifed and fiourifhing places’,

“Thefe’

~P See Benfon’s Hiftory of the firft planting of the’
Chriftian religion. ‘London, ‘1744, vol. ii, in ato.
Fabricii, Salutaris lux toti mundo exoriens, Hamburg,’
4731, in 4to. in which is given a catalogue of thofe
Chriftian communities which can be proved to have
been planted in the time of the Apoftles.—Among the
firft converfions none is more remarkable than that of
St. Paul, Aéts ix. and xxvi. 123. Lyttleton | has
fhewn in his * Obfervations on the converfion and
Z3 apoftlefhip

348 The Cretiibitity of

Thefe) communities , did, not confit of
merely low, aiean,,. and, ignexant
people» butmany,gneat and learned men
acknowledged themfelves to belong t0
their communion. Among’ their: frit
followers are found the Proconfal Ser-
gius Paulus*; Dionyfius, e@ member of
the council of Areopagus, together with
his wife, anil many other Athenians":
feveral perions belonging to the vourtof
the'emperour Nero‘; Erafims, chatn:'
berlain' at Corinth’; fome of) the pri-
mates of Ata"; end! Jufia Martyn,
Tatian, ‘Atiehoabires, Theophilus. of
Anti: aaa! ~ asia aly Pens

apetlahip of Be Paul, in a ietede to Gilbert Wel, ,
that this event cannot be attributed to the deceit of
others, nor to the<deceit or fanaticifm of St. Paul him-
fel; byt that it is true, and confequently an, imeon-
trovertible proof -of the silaien of the bite eli-
gion. i. 2 beta ois ni
gq Agtsxii, Jide vi
a Ads axvii. BA ite?
_.* Philipp. ; iW+ 226... poe saibesis
ae Rom. xvie 2) base
SARE 33a. MO a? * nvr
/ iL . s tullian,

the New Leftament. 343

tullian, Hegefippus, Melito, Miltiades;
Pantinus, Hippolitus Portuentis, Am-
monius and Origen: men, of whom
fome were Philofophers, and accurately
acquainted with the beft writings, and
allthe learning of the Gentiles’,°
»All thefe perfons lived at'a time
when,’ with inconfiderable trouble and
_ without:the application of much learn-
ing, they might have inquired into the
truth or falfhood of the Chriftian hif-
tory. It deferves to be remarked here,
that even in’ the third century perfons
were alive, who had communicated
with the contemporaries of the Apofiles; .
and confequently might have derived
the evidence for the truth or falfhood of
thofe events from the firfi fource.
St. Tohn the Apofile lived’ until the
year of Chrift' 100. Polycarp, his dif-
ciple and moft intimate friend, and who
was perfonally acquainted with fome

* See ‘above, Part I. Book II.
Z 4 | of

344 The Credibility of

of the other Apoftles, until 167. His
difciple, Ireneeus, who was in habits of
intercourfe with many of the imme-.
diate contemporaries and‘ fcholars of
the Apofties, lived until 202. | Origen,
the oracle of the Chriftians, who was
celebrated about this time at Alex-
andria, and was conneéted with the
moft. confiderable chriftians in. Egypt
and in almoft the whole of the Eaft,
had confequently without doubt. col-
leéted information on the Chriftian hif-
tory from many perfons,’ who, as well
as Irenzus, had received their intel-
ligence from the immediate. contem-
poraries of the <Apoftles——But the
many thoufands who became Chriftians
in the firft century were far better
qualified for that inquiry: fince Chrif-
tianity was preached at a time when
learning of every kind flourifhed under
the government of the Romans; and
yeceived its origin in a country which
gt that period, though its governours

and

the New Tefiament. 345
and ‘military concerns’ had frequent in=
tercourfe with the Romans and with the
moft polifhed nations of the world.
-. Thefe men, of whom fome were dif-
tinguifhed by rank and learning, and
all in a condition to examine into the
truth’ of the Chriftian hiftory with
little or no trouble; who were edu-
eated in’ religions and: cuftoms (and
who is ignorant of the power of cuftom
and education?) “which © Chriftianity
abfolutely rejeéted ; received this hif-
tory.and! embraced the religion—A
religion, which obliged:them to change
entirely their whole: courfe of life, ‘all
their former aétions and inclinations*;
~ which every moment ‘endangered their —
goods, their confequence; and their
lives. To ‘this religion, which de-
manded nothing lefs than the facrifice
of all their former modes’ of thinking,
cuftoms, and darling paffions; to. this

* Ephef, iv, 17——24. Vv. 121.

religion,

346 The Credibility of
religion, I fay, \they were fo devoted,
and embraced it with oi much: zeal;
that midltitudes Yacrificed to it ‘all, their
comforts, wealth, peace, and: confe-
quence; and, which is {till more, the
love of their families: and, fill, confeff-
ing its truth, fuffered fteadily and with a
compefure both tranquil and rational
the moft horrible tortures and the! wuts
painful death’, Sty Soto

Bere, dpredoids ave rams seis bid
very forcible proof of the. credibility
of thewritersoof the New) Teftament,
A mutnber of ‘men, confifting of many
hundreds and thoufands, among whom
were feveral lof; confiderable confe-
@acnce and learning, arofe and tef-
tified with admimable conftaney to. the
trath ‘of facts, which they diad every
opportunity of knowing and proving.
And this their teftimony is: equally as
wéighty asiif they had left it in writing,

¥ Scethe following: and 2 Ch, of 2 Book.
ed and

the New Teftament. 347

and that writing had been tranfmitted
downtous. ‘“ For,” to ufe the words
of Butler*, ‘“ were a fatt exprefsly re-
lated by one or more ancient hifto-
rians, and dilputed in after ages; that
this fa&t is acknowledged to have been
believed by great numbers of the age
in which the hiftorian fays it was done,
would be allowed an additional proof.
of fuch faét, quite diftinét from the
exprefs teftimony of the hiftorian.
The credulity of mankind is acknow-
ledged: and the fufpicions of mankind
ought to be acknowledged too; and
their backwardnefs ever to believe,
and greater {till to praétice, what
makes againft their intereft,”

* Butler’s Analogy of religion natural and revealed.
to the courfe of nature. p. 335, 336. Edit. r79t.

- BOOK

it we
é ie “i oy

a

Lt ahs

“a

m
t

oe
i

BOOK II.

The wonderful Eftablifament and Pro-
pagation. of Chriftianity, is a moft
convincing Proof of the entire Cre-
dibility of the Hiftory of the New
Tefiament, and of the Religion which
at eftablifhes.

seeeemcertrenees
CHAP. I.

DESCRIPTION OF THE WONDERFUL
PROPAGATION OF CHRISTIANITY.

I. Chriftianity fpreads itfelf almoft im-
mediately over the whole World.

It is truly aftonifhing how widely
Chriftianity had extended itfelf almoit
immediately at its firft rife. In lefs
than fifty years numerous Chriftian

come

350 The Credibility of

communities had heen eftabhthed in
every part, and in the moft confi-
derable cities, of the then known world’.
The little feed was already grown up
to a lofty and wide-fpreading tree; and —
in the two following centuries it caft
its beneficent fhade continually wider
towards the Eaft and Weft. In the
beginning of the fourth century the
whole of the great and extenfive em-
pire of the Romans was filled ‘with
Chriftians, who held the moft confi-
derable employments in the ftate. The
very courts of the heathen emperours
contained men of fearcely any other
perfuafion. Under the perfecution of
Dioclefian, a whole city in Phrygia was
burnt, becaufe all the inhabitants had
embraced that faith. Some of the em-
perours, (as Maxentius, for inftance)
were obliged to fpare the Chriftians on
‘account of the people at Rome. It

" & See above, p. 340, 341
was

the New Teftamens. 351

was this externally flourifhing ftate of
the Church, from the diffentions end
_ vices which it oecafioned, that became
the principal caufe of the terrible per-~
fecutions of the Chriftians in the fourth
century®. Laftly, im the perfon of
Conftantine the Great, Chriftianity af-
cended even the imperial throne.

Il. It prevailed without the Affifiance
of any temporal Power.

- THIS rapid and fuccefsful progrefs
was not effected by any human power.
No prince, king, or emperour had
adopted it. No fword was drawn in
its caufe; no armies took the field;
no territories were conquered, It could
neither procure riches for its followers,
nor exalt them to employments of cen~
fequence,. On the contrary, amidft
poverty and obfeurity; and intirely de-
* See the beautiful extra& from Eufebius in Dr.
Semler’s Hitt. eccl, 1. 100. 3
sie void

+

352 The Credibility of

void. of all temporal influence and
greatnefs did Chriftianity exift in the
world until the fourth century.. In-
ftead of being fupported and extended
by earthly power and magnificence, it.
was rather obftructed by that very
caufe. Its exaltation to the throne
was the epoch of its decline both ex-
ternally and internally.

Ill. Through thirteen poor, inconfi«
derable, unlearned, and almoft un-
known men.

ABOUT thirteen men’, who: were
members of a nation, defpifed by the
Romans and Greeks; of the meaneft
extraction; brought up from their in-
fancy in the employment of fifhermen ;
formed in no {fchools of the rhetori-
cians ; unacquainted with any part of
the wifdom of the philofophers, or of

b See above, Part II. B. I. !
the

the New Teftament. 858

the knowledge ofthe learned; aban-
doned ; perfecuted; hated’ by all, even
by their relatives ;—thefe men arife,
relate the hiftory of Jefus, affert his
refurre€tion and his numerous mira-
cles ;\and on this foundation preach
Chriftianity. And Jews, Greeks, Ro-
mans, and. the whole world embrace
their doétrine.

IV. Amidft the moft rcctou internal
_ difturbances and di iftraaions. a

MANY philofophers and fcholars
alfo became Chriftians.”’ Thefe men
began in the fecond century, by in-
troducing their fancies and errors, to
deform the ‘amiable fimplicity of this
religion; to ob{cure its {fplendour, and to
diminifh its ftrength:'' And now appear
various Heretics; this fociety, : which
had been moft. cordially united in the
bands of love, is fevered into numerous
fe&ts; genuine chriftian virtue conti-

AA tinually

954 The Credibility of

nually decreafes ; and fuperftition, fa-
naticilm and vice occupy its place.
Thus, fo early as the beginning of the
fecond century, the Chriftian Religion
was compelled to ftruggle with dan-
gerous enemies even in its, own bofom !

V. Under the moft cruel external per-
fecutions, and the oppofition of the
whole world. — |

FROM without, if not more dan-
gerous yet more powerful and terrible
enemies united themfelves againft it.
Chriftianity had an objet no lefs im-
portant than the overthrow of the fu-
perftition of the Jews, and the idola-
trous worfhip of the Gentiles; which ©
comprehended the whole of the exifting
world. It was therefore oppofed by
all. The powerful and rich) Jews who
were fpread over every region of the
Roman empire, at Jerufalem, in Pa-
Teftine, at Damafcus, at Alexandria,

| at

the New Te efement 355

at Rome, employed all their power and
artifice to extirpate the Chriftian name
from the face of the earth. . The
Apofiles were many times feourged
and banifhed; St. Stephen ftoned; the
Chriftians expelled from Jerufalem ;
St. James beheaded; St. Paul chafed
from one place to another, imprifoned,
feourged; and, in a word, the wrath of |
the Roman magiftracy together with
the fury of the people, every thing was
furhsmoned up in order to choak the
tender plant in its firft thooting ~~
Among the Gentiles religion was a part
of their polity, and fo interwoven with
the ftate and civil government, that the
governours and magiftracy oppofed any —
alteration of the eftablifhed réligion
as ftrenuoufly as they would have re-
fifted the overthrow of their own au-
thority and the deftru€tion of the ftate.
Thefe magiftrates were alfo in general
the Priefis of Paganifm. And where this
was not the cafe, yet even there the

AA whole

356 The Credibility of

whole, body of the priefthood derived
their fubfiftence from. this. impofture ;
obtained from it their high civil privi-
leges, were, very numerous. and very
powerful in the ftate; and ftood, from
the .above mentioned caufes, im the
moft intimate connection with the ma-
giftracy. The people blindly followed
- thefe conduétors. Their education, and
cuftoms. inherited . from father..to: fon,
made the worthip of idols a fecond
nature to them; and their vicious. ap-
petites could find nothing more .con-
venient or more defirable than a reli-
gion which fold all the favours of the
Gods for facrifices, incenfe,.. purifica~
tions and fimilar corporeal ceremonies.,
They who were called Philofaphers.at
that time were fo violently captivated.
with ,that to, which. they applied the
term wifdom, namely, with their meta-
phyfical fancies, fceptical. follies, and
rhetorical.arts; that they fet. in motion,
all the. powers, of. de and all the
ee | * artifices

oe A.

the New Teftament. 357

artifices of fophiftry to banifh a religion
from the world, which fo fimplified :the
whole fyftem of wifdom and eftablifhed
it inrfuch a manner as to be compre-
hended by every capacity, and founded
allsthe:happinefs of the human race on
one, that had been crucified. .. Thus
then. .a// that. was. powerful in the
Heathen world became. moft zealoufly —
hoftile to the Chriftian faith. . From the
time of Nero, the emperours of Rome
enacted laws, intended for the extir-
patiom of Chriftianity.. This. tyrant
commanded: its followers to be fewn
up in the {kins of beafts, and thefe fa-
turated with oil, to, be lighted: up. by
night.for a public fpeétacle. Butit.was
not the. cruel Nero: alone..who perfe-
cuted the Chriftians; eyen the mild
Trajan,.and the philanthropic Marcus |
Antoninus. ordered. that. they fhould
be compelled by imprifonments and
torments to renounce their reli-

| AA 3 gion,

358 The Credibility of

gion®., In oppofition to all thefe: nus
merous and princely powers, im oppo-
fition to the whole Roman empire, were
placed thefe poor, unlettered fifhermen,
jomed by a Paul equally poor and m-
confiderable. And—they not.dnly de-
fended themfelves, but—even con-
quered: overthrew the united fubtlety
_and power of emperours, kings, gover-
- nours, generals, merchants, fophifts, and
of the people; amd on the ruinsi of Ju-
daifm and Paganifm founded—the re-
ligion of Jefus.! Jt would have been
apparently much eafier for thefe thi-
teen men, alone and without any affift-
ance, to have overthrown ‘the whole
Roman: foree, and to have placed
themfelves on the imperial throne’ |

© See Franc. Balduini Ad edicta vett. principum
Romanorum de Chriftianis, Mofhemii Inttitut. hift.
ecclef. maj.,. et Ruinarti Pref. ad a&ta martyrum.

« See Lyttleton, On, the, Converfion and, Apoftlethip
of St. Paul, and Jortin’s Difcourfes. concerning the
truth of the Chriftian religion, p. 87—116 of the
2d Edition.

VI.

the New Teftament. 359

VE And although exciting the repug-
nance of the human heart.

BUT perhaps—it may be faid—they
knew how to intereft the finful inclina-
tions of the human heart in their fa-
your ?—Direétly on the contrary, Chrif-
_ tianity excites all thefe inclinations

without exception againft itfelf. And
what is the power of kings and ém-,
perours, when compared with the en-
mity of the ruling paflions of the hu-
man heart? The Religion of the New
Teftament announces the moft irre-
concilable hoftility to pride, ambition,
"vanity, avarice, revenge, impurity, and
every other finful, that is, univerfally-
injurious inclination and appetite. It
requires of its followers that théy thal
not poffefs any fuch appetites and
thoughts even in their hearts. It re-
quires that they fhall prattice invari-
ably and univerfally an unqualified,
AA & un-

360 The Credibility of

unwearied, unrelaxed, and aétive phi-
lanthropy. It requires that they fhall
be cordially: benevolent even,'to. their
enemies,’°and: win» and® make them
happy by atts of beneficence and blet-
fings of every kind. It. alfo requires
us to facrifice all our innocent plea-
fures and profits, in a word, all our
temporal advantages, even health and
life, to the general good of mankind,
nay of our moft mortal enemies ; and
fuffer for their fake every kind ‘of ca-
lamity, trouble, danger, and torment.
——It declares that neither any viva voce
confeffion of certain formularies, nor
the exercife of any corporeal ceremo-
nies; but that fuch a virtue as is
grounded in the heart, which continu-
ally aéts, and inceffantly increafes, is
the only mean whereby we can obtain
the favor of ‘the Divinity, and the blifs
of heaven. * In this manner Chrif=
tianity raifed’ againft itfelf the ruling
i yd of thie human heart, ‘and—the

ef “whole

the New Teftament. 361

whole world. And, yet, this fmall
grain of muftard-feed, as the author of
our holy religion Had many times pro-
phefied, wre a large tree, on whofe
branches the birds of the air lodged ;
and grew up, like the. feed which. is
fown, unobferved, and rapidly to the
full grain in the ear an _Chriftianity
converts millions in every ‘part of the
world ; and though expoted to conti-
| nually, increafing dangers, extends itfelf
abroad; and, lafily, at the prefent day,
is embraced and confefied by the tenth
part of the human race’. 7

© Matth. xiii..31—-33. Mark iv. 26-29,»

f Robert Millar’s Hiftory of the propagation of
Chriftianity, London, 1731. 2 vols. in 8vo. con-
tains much ufeful matter, particularly refpeting the
miffions of Chr iftians into heathen countries: but it
is only a compilation from well known books ; it can-
not always be depended upon; nor is it by any means
complete.—The reader will find in Fabricii Salutaris
lux Evangelii toti orbi exoriens, in 4to. an account of
the writers on the hiftory of Chriftianity.

CHAP.

362 The Credibility of

GHAR: ils ylod *
That the old World was intolerant.

VOLTAIRE boldly afferts* that the
Gentiles in general, and particularly
the Romans, were by no means into-
lerant. ‘ Nothing,’ he exclaims, ‘was
more focial than the heathen religion :
The Romans permitted the exercife of
every réligion, and confidered religious
tolerance as one of the moft falutary
laws of the ftate: This monfter, this
peft of the world, Intolerance, is a
daughter of Chriftianity !’ |

g Traité de la Tolerance, Si les Romains ont éé
tolérans. .

SECT

the New Teftament. 363

: «> SHOT I. |
Of the Egyptians, Grecians and

Romans.

I. NOT to mention the old Perfians,
who deftroyed all the ffatues in the
temples of the Egyptians and Gre-~
cians ; nor the Carthaginians, who were
in the utmoft degree jealous of the
fervice of the Gods of their ftate—
what do thefe adverfaries of Chrif-
tianity think of the inceffant civil wars
among the Egyptians? One province
of the country waged war on another,
hecaufe the latter worfhipped the ox,
the dog, the wolf, the cat, and other
brute beafts, as gods, whilit the former
flew and confumed them! What of
that eftablithed law of the country
which condemned to death the perfor
who fhould defiroy one of the animals
to which divine honours were paid?

A Roman
5

304 The, Credibility of

A Roman, as Diodorus relates who
was himfelf an eye-witnefs of the fact,
had accidentally ‘killed’ a cat, and was
immediately put to death _ by, the en-
raged people. From a “fimilar caufe
the inhabitants of ‘the city Ombi be-
came-engaged..in.a quarrel with thofe
of Tentyra, which was. conducted, with
fo.,.much. violence, that, the ‘Tentyrans,
cut to, pieces on, the {pot.a- citizen, of
Ombi, who had been taken. prifoner,.
and ate him {till -Teaking with blood...

| ‘Sammus utringue “es ‘
‘Inde furor vulgo, quod numina vicinorum’) (9)
Odit ‘uterque locus, quum:folos credat habendos (;:.:
Effe.deos, quas ipfe colit'. tu

FOE this be called’ tolerance ‘the’
Grecians were ‘alfo tolerant ina very
high’ degree. At Athens every: eitizely

me. wal
» 4 See Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, and Sacicclaslin
Juyenal’s x sth Satire, in which. he paints the fuper tition.
and intolérance of the Egyptians, and relates that hor-
rible hiftory whieh took placerin his time." Oat OG
“4 Juyenaly Sat. a5~: Lest dcp
ee fwore

77)

the New Teftament. 365

fwore an oath that he would acknow-
ledge the religion of the country, and
defend it againft every other.» Certain
laws forbade men to difpute concerning
the gods, or to difhonour’ them under.
very heavy, and in fome cafes, mortal
punifhment". And their feverity was
felt by many of the moft worthy mem
Protagoras was driven into exile, :be-:
caufe in»his:writings he ‘had merely
called’ in\queftion the exiftence.of the
gods;.. and::his) works ‘were | publicly
burned’; Anaxagoras, the firft. who»
taught/amongthem»the doétrine of
One* Supreme Being; was condemned
to death becaufe he named the fun,
which the Athenians worfhipped as a
divinity,.'a burning fire”. And every

one knows the ‘fate of :the greateft
— ofvall. the philofophers of antiquity;
who; on account of his purer and ex-.

k Strobseus De republ. .ferm. fee Petiti Leg. att. |

1 Cicero De nat. deor. I. 23.

® Diogenes Laertius II.

cellent

366 The Credibility of

cellent doftrines concerning God and
Providence, was compelled to drink
‘the poifoned bowl. His difciple alfo,
the noble Plato, who has fo affe&tingly
defcribed the martyrdom of Socrates;
even he gives, under the laws of the
wife ftate which he defcribes, this com-~-
mand—let the calumniators of the
gods be firft reproyed, and if that be of
no avail, let them be punifhed, even
with death”. And this was the ruling
fentiment of all Greece, as is clearly
evinced by what are called the holy,
that is, the religious wars. At the
time of Pericles, the Athenians waged)
war on the Lacedemonians, becaufe
they had, in common with the Pho-
cians, the fuperintendance of. the: tem-
ple of Apollo at Delphi*®. At another
time, a fimilar religious war was the
pretext for Philip of Macedon to fub-
jugate Greece. The Phocians had

1 De Legibus X:
© Plutarch. in Pericle, Thucyd. I.

| a

the New Teftament. 367

appropriated to themfelyes a field de-
dicated to Apollo at Delphi. . The
council. of Amphi¢tyons pronounced.
them on this account guilty of. facri-
lege ; adjudged them to pay a certain
fum of money; and on their refufing
to pay it, war was folemnly proclaimed
againft them, in which all Greece took
a part, and which continued with great
violence during the fpace of ten years’.
And who is ignorant of the cruelties
and terrible torments by which An-
tiochus Epiphanes withed to compel
the Jews to facrifice to idols, and to
renounce their paternal religion?

_ Til. But among the Romans, we are
told, Intolerance was unknown; all
fe&ts enjoyed under them the moft
perfect liberty of confcience and reli-
gion. Yet was it one of the funda-
mental laws of the ftate (of the XII
tables), ‘ Deos peregrinos ne colunto ;’

® Diodorus Siculus XVI.
and

368 The Credibility of

and Cicero, one of the greateft oratoré
and lawyers, reckoned it among the
moft neceflary laws of every wife ftate,
‘Séparatim nemo’ habeffit deos, neve
novos: féd ne ‘advenas, nifi publice
adfcitos, privatim colunto*”’ When,
in the year of the city 396, a great
drought and infeétious diforder raged,
fuperftition fo far attained the fupe-
riority, that on every fide were feen
new gods and new forms of divine
fervice. The government, therefore,
enjoined the Ediles to be vigilant, ‘Ne
qui nifi Romani dii, neu quo alio more
quam patrio colerentur’.’~ In like
manner, under great difafters, the ftate
was purified from foreign religions *.
Mecenas advifed the Emperour Au-

2 De Legibus II. 8.

* Livius Hiftor, IV. 30. berate .¥

® Livius Hiftor. IX. 30. XXV.1. XXXIX. 16,.
Quoties hoc patrum avorumque ztate, Negotium eft
magiltratibus datum, ‘ut facra externa fieri vetarent,
omnem difciplinam facrificandi preterquam more Ro-
mano abolerent ?

guftus

the New Tefament. 369

fuftus to forbid not only atheifm, but
alfo all foreign divine-worthip, both
from.religious and political principles.
‘Worthip,’ faid he to him‘, ‘the gods
yourfelf, and compel others to do the
fame. Abhor all thofe who would
make any innovations in religion, and
punifh them.—Suffer no atheifts, ma-
gicians, &c.’——Tiberius expelled from
Rome all who were devoted to the
‘Egyptian, Jewifh, and in general, to
any foreign divine-worfhip*: four thous
fand of thefe men were, merely for the
fake of their religion, fent to Sardinia
to fight againft the robbers, ‘fi ob gras
vitatem cceli interiiffent, vilé damnum;’
and all the reft were chafed out of
Italy”. I have already fpoken of the
hard and in part cruel perfecutions of
the Chriftians. Even the mild Trajan
commanded Pliny to execute the Chrif+

— t Dio Caffius, Lib. LIT.
u Suetonii, Tiber. I. 36.
w Tacitus Annal, II. 8y.

BB tiang.. |

370- The Credibility of

tians*. Not only the Romans, ., but
alfo. the Grecians, and in general all
idolaters readily adopted foreign ido-
latrous worthip: it was in fatt a part
of their religion; for they imagined,
that every nation, and every affair in
the world had its peculiar god, and
believed themfelves to be fafe in pro-
portion to the number of the gods that
they worfhipped.. But with fo much
greater feverity did they perfecute alk
foreign religions not eftablifhed. by the.
ftate; and more particularly the: Chrif-
tian, becaufe it condemned all idola-
trous worfhip, and alk flavith adoration
of the emperours. ‘The laws, cuftoms,
and fentiments of the Egyptians, Gre-
cians, and Romans put this matter be-
yond all doubt.

x Plinit Epi. Lib. X. ep. xevii—Cornelii van
Bynkerfhéek opufeula, De cultu religionis peregvitize

apud vet. Roman. et Jo. Dan. ab Hoven Compenfia,
Fafic. I. p. 33 f fs

SECT.

the New Teftament: 371

“4

- SECT. IIs

The do&rine of Chriftianity on this
Subjett. ea ae

CHRISTIANITY was the very firft
fyftem of religion which introduced
among men an unlimited, énlightened
and charitable toleration of all who
profeffed religious articles different from
its own. It is true, that the Mofaic
law tolerated ftrangérs, without com-
pelling them to embrace the Ifraelitith
religion: but they were obliged to re-
nounce the worfhip of idols; and
every idolater was punifhed with death.
A féverity which was rendered. necef-
fary by the exifting fituation of the
world, and the vices and cruelties and
affaffinations, infeparably connected
with the idolatrous worfhip of the times.
The New Teftament here alfo extends
and exalts virtue. No man, according

BB to

372. Lhe Credibility of

. to its es, fhall be defpifed on account

of his religious opinions, be they ever
fo abfurd and injurious; fill lefs fhall
he. be. fiigmatifed by mortifying and
calumniating appellations ; and leaft of
all condemned and pronounced inca-
pable. of, the favour and blifs of God.
It commands, further, that Chriftianity
fhall. not be prefied on any heretic, and
leaft of all through corporeal means.
That thofe appointed for that purpofe
fhall.explain the Chriftian religion to
him, with, found. arguments and mild-
nefs ; but leave, the choice entirely to
his. own. judgement. That above. all,
the Chriftian fhall, defire. and hope for
the falvation. of every man, whofe re-
ligious fentiments, are erroneous, even
though he be a contemner of religion
or an atheift; love him as. cordially as
he would a believing brother ; aétwith —
benevolence and, beneficence towards
him; and) pray to God for his hap-

a pinels.

the New Tefiament. 373

pinefs’. That, in this manner, the
Chriftian fhall on the one fide avoid
and flee from every error; abominate
in particular thofe which are pernicious
to the general welfare, confequently
moft of all errors in religious concerns:
and labour en the contrary with all
earnefinefs and zeal after truth, par-
ticularly in religion, the higheft con-
cern of man. On the other fide, he
fhall be attached with brotherly love to
him who errs, is deceived, or led into
fin; recommend to him at proper op-
portunities the truth with firmnefs and
fervency; endeavour to win him by
every action of kindnefs and benefi-
cence: but give up to his own judge-
ment the perfect liberty of choice.
Such a tolerance, abfolutely unlimited,
and purified from -all indifference to-
wards the truth, is taught, and indeed
was firft taught by Chriftianity !—In-

y Matth. x. 13. John vi. 66—68. Rom.xiv.

2 Cori. 24. iv. 2, 3, and other places.
BB 3 tolerance

374 The Credibility of

tolerance on the other hand is, accord-
ing to its principles, not only—to afflit
men with ciyil punifhments on account
of mere matters of religion; to com-
pel them to renounce their religion ;
or to put them to death for the fake of
it: but alfo, to refufe refidence ina
country, together with the free exer-—
cife of their religion to religious fo-
cieties, whofe tenets are not pernicious
to any principles of ciyil right; and,
in fhort, to withhold from any one,
fimply on account of his articles of
faith, thofe charitable feryices which
are in our. power.—And_ this into-~
lerance, according to its doétrine, is
fin’; a renunciation and difhonouring
of Chriftianity and its fundamental
principles*; is the deftruction of one of
‘its effential laws, the love of our
brethren ° ; and even a crime againft

% Rom. xiv. 23,
° Luke i IX. 52-—~56.
b : Tim, vi. 1—6,

the

the New T. eflament. 375
thé injured majefty of God‘. When,”
therefore, as early as the fourth cen-
tury “,. men, who bore. the name -of
Chriftians, began to perfecute théfe
who differed in religious opinions from.
themfelves, and to confider and to.
punifh what they called herefy as a
civil crime; when Auguftine placed
this religious perfecution among the
Chiitian doétrines : when men, in the
eighth century, began to propagate the
Chriftian religion (as they erroneoufly
named it) with fire and fword; when
_ fhortly afterwards the term Heretic
became a magic word which -trans-
formed thoufands of men into tigers;
when we read of the chriftian crufades
againft heretics and unbelievers; and
when, laftly, the inquifition became
eftablifhed in the very bofom of Chrif-
tendom, that moft terrible of all tri-
bunals, which neverthelefs was named

£ Rom. xiv. 113. a See above, p. 90.:

RAMS BBA the

376 The Credibility of

the holy, and in the name of Chrift and
of God murdered, burnt, defolated—

Triftius haud illa monftrum, nec fevior ulla
Peftis et ira Detm ftygiis fefe extulit undis =.

Who can lay thefe abufes or even the
leaft part of them to the charge of Chrif-
tianity ? Sooner might we reject all the
arts of medicine, becaufe ignorant pre-
tenders to {kill in that fcience have
robbed men of their health and lives;
fooner condemn all civil fociety, becaufe
tyranny, riot and anarchy have often
arifen out of it; fooner call reafon, that
preeminent quality of man, the peft of hu-
manity, becaufe the Alexanders, Cefars,
Neros, and Buonapartes ufe it for the
devaftation of the earth—than call
Chriftianity intolerant on account of
the abominations of fuch difgraces to
humanity, who apply to themfelves its
name! Chriftianity which firft intro-
duced among men a tolerance as unli-
mited as enlightened and charitable!

CHAP,

the New Teftament. 377

CHAP. ITI,

Parallel between the Propagation of
Chrifiianity, and of the Religion of
- Mahomet.

_ THUS. Chriftianity eftablithed itfelf
in the world, never perfecuting, but
inceflantly perfecuted ; under yarious
difficulties from within; and infinite
oppofitions, perfecutions, and cruelties —
from without; entirely through itfelf,
through its own doétrines and laws;
and {pread itfelf over every part of the
globe !—It is true, the religion of Ma-
Homet likewife extended itfelf with moft
aftonifhing rapidity and facility over
the face of the earth. Scarcely had
' ten years elapfed fince his flight from
Mecca, (the Hejra) when he had
brought all the tribes of the Arabians
under the yoke of his religion and fo-
vereignty ; and a fhort time afterwards

his

378 The Credibility of

his religion had fwallowed up the nu-
merous and flourifhing churches in the
Eaft ; overfiowed the Weft; and was
become the terror of united Chriften-
dom... This event. is truly aftonifhing ;
and the enemies of Chriftianity have
not failed to make ufe of it as an ar-
gument to fhew that there was nothing
miraculous in the extenfion of the re-
ligion of Jefus*. But in this they
have either not known, or have an-
xioufly fupprefled, the connections and
means of afiiftance which favoured
Mahomet, and: which leave nothing
wonderful in the fuccefs of his doc-
trine.-— Mahomet came into the world: |
exactly at the time: proper for his pur-
potes. Religion in Arabia Felix, the:
_ paternal) country of his new. fyftem,
_ was’ then in the*moft deplorable {ftate.
‘ ¢ Boulamvilliers, Vie me Mahomed, avec des re-
flexions fur la religion Mahomedane, et les coutumes

des Mufulmans. Amfterdam, 2d edit. 1731, in 8vo.

The

the New Tefiament. 379

The inhabitants of the country were di-
vided into four religious parties. Some
of them were devoted to the idolatrous
worthip of the Sabians, who adored
the ftars as divinities: and others to
-.Zendicifm, or the idolatry of the Magi,
who worfhipped fire. The Jewifh re-
ligion had a great many followers, who
treated the others with much cruelty.
And the Chriftians who ‘were refident
there at that time, formed principally
an aflemblage of different heretical
fects, who had taken refuge among
this-free people, becaufe they were not
tolerated in the Roman empire. Un-
der fuch a diftraéted ftate of ‘religion,
it would have been highly wonderful
if Mahomet had not procured in a>
fhort time a numerous train of fol-
lowers. The Chriftian religion, on the
contrary, received its origin in a coun-
_ try where the only true God was wor-
fhipped, and the Mofaic law (which
it abr ogated) univerfally revered.—The

political

$80 The Credibility of —

political fiate of the world at the pe-—
riod when Mahomet appeared was un-
commonly favourable to a new con-
queror. |The Weftern part of Roman
empire was then overflowed by the
Goths; and the Eaftern fo weakened
through the Huns and Perfians, that
it could refift no vigorous attack; with+
out taking into confideration the ab-
furd fuperftition, the horrid contetts,
and blood-thirfty f{pirit of perfecution
which had then almoft entirely extin-
guifhed Chriftianity. In the Perfian
empire exifted ruinous internal com-
motions which were excited principally
through the impious dottrine of Manes,
and the defolating principles of Maz-
dack, who, a fhort time before the
appearance of Mahomet, had given
himfelf out for a prophet, and intro-
duced a community of wives and of
property. But at the time of. the
Apoftles the power of the Romans was
ftill in its meridian height, and had

united

the New Tefiament. 381

united almoft the whole globe under
its fovereignty. | |
Again, Arabia wasvery populous; many
Jews and Chriftians had taken refuge
there from other kingdoms where they
had been perfecuted. by the prevailing
feéts. The Arabians were a free people;
not devoted like other nations to the
extravagances of luftful pleafures, but
temperate and hardy, and therefore
properly qualified. for new conquefts.
This brave people was at that time
divided into feparate tribes, who were
all independent, and connetted with
one another in no political union: a
circumftance which uncommonly faci-
litated the conquefts of Mahomet. Ma-
homet himfelf was defcended from a
family of much. power and confe-
quence; and by a marriage with an
opulent widow became one of the
richeft men in Mecca. He was en-
dowed. with fine and politic talents;
and from the various journies which
he

382 © The Credibility of

he made in his mercantile concerns;
had acquired a perfeét acquaintance
with the conftitution of the country.—
He compounded his new religious fyf-
tem out of all the four prevailing re-
ligions of Arabia. From the idolatry
of the Sabians and Magi he took the
divine celebration of Friday, and of the
four months in the year; the pilgri-
mage to Mecca, together with different
fuperftitious fables concerning the re-
furre&tion of the dead and the laft
judgment. From the Jews he bor-
rowed many tales, particularly con-
cerning angels ; numerous purifications
and fafts; the prohibition of certain
kinds of food and of ufury; the per-
miffion of polygamy and of capricious
divorce. From the Chriftian feéts he
derived a variety of dottrinal tenets
as well falfe as true, concerning the
divine decrees ; the authority of Jefus
and of the Evangelifts; the refurre¢tion

of the body; the. univerfal judgment
of

the New Teftament. 385

of men; together with many moral
precepts. Thus. he» united. by this
mixture all the four religions of his
paternal country; and thereby pro-
cured a more eafy admittance for his.
new doétrine.-—Further, he eftablithed
his. religion in fuch a’ manner that. it
did not excite againft itfelf the paf-
frons of men, but on the contrary flad-
tered them in various ways. Accord-
ing to his fyftem the fum of religion
confifted in the performance of cer-
tain corporeal ceremonies— purifica~
tions, the recital of. certain prayers,
alms, fafts, and pilgrimages to Mecca.
It was truly much eafier to perform
thefe than to reftrain lufts, to fupprefs
all finful appetites, and to confine
thofe which are innocent within their
proper bounds. He attributed fuch a.
value to thefe mechanical ceremonies,
that he fuppofed atonement to be
thereby made for every crime and
every fin. Such a doétrine, fo ex-

1 tremely

354 The Credibility of

tremely accommodating to the finful
patfions of every kind; together with
the permiffion of polygamy and capri-
cious divorce; and the promife of a
full enjoyment of grofs, fenfual luxu-
fies in a future life, brought more men
under his fubjeétion than could have
been effected by a moderate army.—
And laftly, Mahomet was not fo much
a Prophet. as a Soldier. He endea-
voured to propagate his religion not
through arguments, he did not addrefs
it to the underftanding; but he ap-
pealed to arms, and made it a funda-
niental law of his religion’ to wage
inceffant war againft unbelievers; and,
fhould they refufe either to become
Mahometans, or to purchafe a freedom
of religion from the hands of the
faithful, by the payment of a certain
tribute, to decide the matter with the
fword.

f Sce the Coran; ch. ix.

Under

the New Teftament. 385

“Under fuch cireumftances it would
have been a phenomenon moft won-
derful and at variance with the whole
analogy of hiftory, if the do€trine of
the prophet of Arabia had experienced
an unhappy, or even a lefs fortunate,
fate.—But that an hiftory, and a reli-
gion founded thereon,—which was dia-
metrically oppofed to all the modes of
divine fervice that exifted at the time
of its origin; and could be eftablithed
on nothing elfe but on their ruins—
which demanded from its followers
under the punifhment of eternal mifery,
a perfe&t change in the whole train of
their thoughts; a deteftation of all un-
chafte pleafures, fornication, adultery,
polygamy, wanton and diffolute di-
yorce ; the abfolute avoidance of all
ambitious, covetous and avaritious pro-
je&ts and concerns; and which placed
the effence of the true worfhip of God
not in vifible ceremonies, but in a
pure, humble, philanthropic, and’ truly

cc virtuous

386 The Credibility of

virtuous mind :—that a religion, which
was {upported by no powerful men;
but was preached by thirteen poor,
defpifed and illiterate perfons; that
this religion; without any the leaft
poffible afiftance of worldly power;

without any active compulfion*®; but,
on the contrary, under the greateft op-
preflion, afflitions and torments of its
fuppor ters ; : fhould have prevailed over
the whole nation of the Jews and the
united power of the Romans ; thould
have acquired in a few. years many
thoufand followers ; foon afterwards
| {pread , itfelf into the fartheft parts of
the North and Weft; and latily thould
have fubjected even kings and em-
perours, together with the greateft and
moft civilized nations: this i is an event
which has not its parallel in call hif-
tory ; and can -by no means be ex-
plained, without calling to our aid a,

& I {peak here of its firft prepagation. |

mo

the New Teftamenit. 387

moft extraordinary fie of the Al-
mighty.

_ © After what has been faid, it is almoft
incomprehenfible how Lord. Boling-
broke could object againft the Chrif-
tian religion, that it had produced no
effe€is worthy of a divine origin.
What kind of effects is then demanded?
‘ If the revelations (fays Bolingbroke*)
which have been pretended, had not
“been. pretended © only—the neceflary
confequence would have been, that the -
fyftem of religion and government
would have been uniform, through the
whole world.’ And why? * Becaufe the
divine’ Omnipotence* would have im-
pofed it on all mankind, fo as neceflarily
to engage their affent.’ But God never
aéts in this manner in the government
of the world as far as we are acquainted
with it. ‘He has given us, as Boling-
broke confeffes, a natural revelation of

h Works, vol. iv. p. 2a.

4 Works, vol. v. p. 261267, )
ccg his

388 The Credibility of

-his will; fince He has conneGted with
certain modes of conduét either falu-
tary or pernicious confequences, and
-beftowed Reafon on man to enable him
-to difcover them. And yet it is evi-
dent, that He does not compel men to
comply with this revelation.—Religion
cannot operate like a eharm or a me-
dicine ; we may ftudy and practice it,
or not. Agreeably to the moral na-
ture of mar, it produces no effects
otherwife than through the underftand-
ing. “And admitting that God had in-
tended to compel men by his Omni-
potence to the prattice of a certain re-
ligion; of what ufe then would have
been an immediate written revelation?
‘Either, therefore, there is no imme-
diate written revelation of God; or
the very exiftence of fuch a revelation
‘proves, that it is God’s will to deal
‘with us, not according to his Ommnipo-
tence, but in a moral manner, and to
leave it entirely to our free-will, whe-

ther

the New Teftament. 389

ther we will follow what He has clearly,
revealed or not.
Indeed the opponents of Chriftianity
labour to ‘deftroy the miracle of its
propagation, by producing a variety of
natural ,caufes, through which they
endeavour to explain it. But the
. greater part of thefe pretended caufes
are forged ; and even if we unite them
all together, this event remains incom-
prehenfible, unlefs we take into the,
account a higher fupport. 1ft. What
they fay, in the firft, place, of Fanati-
cifm, is amply refuted in page 280 f
—2d. The pretext of univerfal To-
lerance under the Jews and Romans ig
evidently contradi€tory to hiftory.*.— _
2d. And the fame may be faid in an-
{wer to the affertion, that the firft fup-
porters of the chriftian) religion were
exclufively fimple and mean. people’—
Bolingbroke :has chofen. till another.

© See above, p. 363. (, 2! Seeabove, p. 342.
3 mode.

896 The Credibility of

mode. He fuppofes this to have bee _
the caufe of its rapid and. extenfive
progrefs, that the Apoftles ufed the
artifice of receiving imto the pale of
Chriftianity all, without exception, both
Jews and Gentiles™. . But what af-
fiftance could that give to a religiom
which afforded not the leaft temporal
advantage, but, on the contrary, placed
its firft fupporters in danger of lofing
every thing they pofieffed in this world,’
nay even life itfelf? Suppofe a’ poor,
defpifed man, who could fearcely find
fupport for himfelf, were to. publifh
a declaration, that he would receive
every one without diftinétion into his |
fervice; is it probable that a fingle
perfon would be induced to enter into
it?—Another affertion, that a commu-
nity of property was introduced in the
earlieft ages of the church, is ftated as
a moft powerful caufe of the propa-

m Works, vol. iv. p. 306.
gation

the New Te eflament. 391

gation of Chriftianity ° . Should we
grant, as his Lordfhip pretends with-
out any foundation and in oppofition
to hiftory, that fuch a common ftock
exifted in the primitive church; this
very. circumftance would have rather
hindered the rich and powerful from
embracing the religion. But the af-
fertion is evidently falfe. Such a com-
munity of property exifted only in the
beginning, and indeed only in the
parent-community at Jerufalem®. The
converts from Paganifm, who compofed
the far greateft part, were reftrained
from leaving their former condition
and calling’; that through their dili-
gence they might obtain fupport for
themfelves, and a trifle for the affiftance
of the neceflitous*; but were by.no
pean allowed to afford nourifhinent

» Works, vol. iv, p- saad
© AGs 'v. vi.

P 3 Cor. vii. 17-24, 30) 31- Titi ii. 95 30s
§ Ephef. i iv. 28.

to

$92 The Credibility of

to the indolent". And the Apoftles
themfelves followed this precept; they
never once permitted the communities
to maintain them, but themfelvés pro-
cured their own fupport*.

Once more:—-When we thus obferve
Chriftianity arifing in the world, con-
tinuing and extending itfelf during
eighteen hundred years, continually
wider and wider; when we fee that
neither the idolatry, fuperftition, and
infidelity which furrounded it on all
fides; nor the united power of the
world, which fought to extirpate it;
nor the heretics, who deformed it; nor
the wretches, who betrayed it; nor
éven its unworthy followers, who, par-
ticularly fince the fourth century, fcan-
dalized it by their vices; nor, laftly,
time, the great deftroyer of all human
things, -have ever been ina condition,
T will not fay to annihilate, but-even to
alter it; we cannot but recognife the

# a Theff, iii, 6—-ya. oa Thefl. iii. 7--9-
traces

the New Teftament.
traces of a Superior Providence; wé
cannot but acknowledge that the inex
plicable propagation of Chriftianity is
a feal of the truth of the hiftory of thé
New Teftament, and, I dare proé

fiounce, of thé divine ones of its
religion!

4

| A. fummary Recapitulation, and Cony
clufion, of the Credibility e the
_ New Teftament.

THUS by the calm and temperate
language in which the writers of thé
New Teftament relate their hiftory, we
become prejudiced in their favour.
They do not declaim on Jefus, they
deliver over him no panegyrics; but
they let him aét and fpeak. And they
inform us of his a€tions, particularly
his miracles, in the moft fimple man-
ner, without any laboured ornaments,

DD: _ without

394. Lhe Credibility of

without any. rhetorical amplification;
and without any enthufiaftic eulogies ;
_ nay, without even. any. calm explica-
tion of what. is great and. fuperna-
tural therein. They are related with
a ftriking fimplicity, exactly like the
moft general and common-place cir-
cumftances.

Thefe authors, as we have feen
above, had every neceflary qualifica-
tion in order to know with certainty
the truth of what they relate. We
cannot difcover in them a fingle {park
of Fanaticifm. It is impoffible that
they could have been deceiyed in that
of which they inform us; and fill lefs
were they. deceivers :. ‘hk who. pub-
lifhed their hiftory on the {pot and at
the time, where and when it happened;
whofe. narration is in part remarkably
coufirmed by foreign authors; whofe
writings contain in themfelves fo. many
clear traces of truth; who oppote
every kind of deceit in their doétrines

2 and

the New Teftament.. 395
and ations; who from their preaching
had no:temporal advantages to obtain,
but! probably all to lofe ; who, laftly,
even facrificed ‘to ‘their’doétrine, reft,
civil honour, and life. The charaéter -
of thefe men is evidently the moft
noble and moft amiable: open-hearted
and honeft in their inftructions; mild
and tolerant towards thofe who thought
differently from themfelves ; ferene and
focial in common intercourfe ; affec-
tionate towards their friends ; generous
towards their enemies—they undertake
a life compofed of pure fatigue and
difficulties, and fuffer contempt and
torment, in order to promulgate a hif-
tory and religion built thereon, which
they confidered as the greateft bleffing
of the world. And their preaching is
attended with the moft wonderful ef-
fect. They are therefore not only
credible; but—they are fo in a greater _
degree than a Tacitus; they are cre- |

cline ae _ dible

396 The Credibility, &c..

_ dible evidences in the higheft of all
pofiible degrees, So that either there
is abfolutely no immeédiate révelation
from God; or-it is contained in. the
writings of the New Teftament,

THE END.

— oo ee
eee anemenentll

Printed by Byz and Law, St, John’s-Square, Clerkenw

by
re

2

14 DAY USE
RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED

LOAN DEPT.

This book is due on the last date stamped below, or

on the date to which renewed.
Renewed books are subject to immediate recall.

JUN 2 L is:

mime. |
. sh 4 ra

puresa
i
esos
mm
A
a
2

LD 21A—50m-9,’58
(6889810 )476B

’ General Library
University of California
Berkeley

J.C. BERKELEY LIBRA!

,
‘

wun ut

co20913284

— aie tS SF srterc ss steerer nae = erener er ernraabeen
Sse seRtasiitatigetecetsistsl wees sisiteistgrett =

pope ett ms : 5
5g ie ‘se - : Se"ns ae seas z
e i oe aS a Se

et ed :

PS

~

PO Big

:
‘